CGTalk - Hitman 2: A little too immoral of a game to find entertainment in?

MCronin

10-13-2002, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by GRMac13
This is a game, nobody is really getting whacked because of it. I'm sick of PC-mavens trying to blame all of the ills of society on the entertainment industry. Murder is a fact of life, so is rape, incest, genocide, war, domestic violence, etc.

So these things are a fact of life, thus they are also a great form of entertainment...

Just wait until they catch this neighborhood sniper in Virginia. I'll give you 10 to 1 odds he's a fan of Counterstrike. They are going to find a copy of Half Life in this guys bedroom and a whole new assault on video games is going to begin. I am not being sarcastic here, and I don't think video games are necessarily the cause of this type of behaviour, but these type of games certainly aren't "quality" entertainment.

If someone wishes to depict these grim aspects of human behavior through games, films, plays, painting, poetry, literature or any other form of art, that's their perrogotive. It's also the perrogative of the consumer to take part in it or not. Nobody is being forced to play these games, they are playing them because they enjoy them.

I once heard a quote that said:

"I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

People who defend excessively violent games always bring up the First Ammendment. These games are not works of art, and they aren't political or social statements. Most of the time they have no redeeming qualities what-so-ever other than being mildly entertaining. They are just a vehicle for corporations to suck up your money. As such, I don't think they are exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they were penning the First Ammendment. I don't think they should be banned, but I'm not opposed at all to having actual laws in place (not meaningless unenforceable ratings) which restrict their access to minors.

I read and interview with Miyamoto talking about this subject, his opinion was basicly, with games you can create any sort of world you want and do anything you want. He couldn't understand why so many game developers want to create ultra realistic worlds where the ultimate goal is death and destruction. If the game industry wishes to be taken seriously as an entertainment medium, much less an art form, more developers and companies are going to have to start producing quality content that appeals to a wider audience than the ids of 12 to 25 year old males.

In light of recent events I think these broadcasters are doing the right thing by refusing to air the commercials.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by googlo
GRMC,

I'm not talking about being PC. I haven't mentioned anything about the ills of society from games.. I'm just talking about the issue philosophically and morally. Like what do people feel morally when they actually think about the game they are playing, like Hitman 2. I would say people generlaly don't care because they just don't really think about it or relate to it.

There is a misconception about free speech though. The constitution does not protect all forms of speech, such as speech that advocates criminal activity or harrassment for example. Free speech is about allowing peoples voices to be heard fairly in a responsible manner but it doesn't necessarily protect the individual from legal prosecution as a result of what they said. People use it way too generically, like it's unconditional and allows for anything, when in reality it doesn't.

I'm not talking about anything criminal here. I'm talking about freedom of speech as in freedom of expression. This has nothing to do with saying "Fire" in a theater or "Bomb" on airplane, or whipping out your peener to unsuspecting women on the street. Those are crimes, everyone knows that. The difference between this and the sort of freedoms I'm talking about is that in these cases you are being forced to hear or see something that you don't want to. In the case of film/movies/games/music/literature you ALWAYS have the choice to not see/hear/read it. You DO NOT have the right to tell people that they can't see/hear/read it though.

I'm talking about the freedom to express oneself through whichever medium they so choose, and the right of the public to experience it if they so choose. Censorship is just plain wrong.

As far as the moral/ethical implications of playing the game. You're right most folks don't think about it, afterall it is JUST a game, they are not walking away with a guilty conscience or blood on thier hands.

googlo

10-13-2002, 05:16 AM

Array,

Yes exactly what I mean.

GRMac13,

It's disturbing, but the fact is that it's human nature. It's always been like that and it always will be. The good thing is that most people are not so weak-minded as to give in to their violent tendencies by actually attacking people. Entertainment is just a safe outlet for these primitive instincts.

I wouldn't necessarily call it weak minded though if it's part of being human. I recognize the aggression part, but why does it have to be through something like being a hitman? That's the disturbing part to me. It's like we are getting so desensitized to violence that we don't mind making/playing games that for all intent and purpose worship it.

I honestly don't think it's because we have a need to hurt and kill each other. What I think the problem is, is that there is so little real violence in most of our lives that we have no means of relating to it and so enjoy it in things like a game or movie. I'm just saying this because if people had more real death and suffering happening in their lives they would not even think of having fun inacting acts of violence that mimick the very real pain and suffering they have actually experienced.

Like the hitman game, what if your brother or sister was shot recently by the sniper over there that is killing people on the east coast? Once someone has experienced something like that suddenly the fantasy of what they took pleasure in becomes reality and they feel disgusted by it and ashamed.

It's like my grandpa, he fought in World War II. He wasn't saying "yeah, we killed so many people and so many of my friends died, it felt reeaaal good! And you know why grandson? Becuase we humans like to kill!"

That's not the case at all. Whenever people actually are put into real life violent situations their outlook changes. There is a big difference between competitive aggression and voilent killing type of aggression.

It's my view that because we are without experience of real loss and real suffering that we can play games like the Hitman or whatever and not really feel disturbed about it because we don't really relate to it. I think a lot of violent games appeal to our competitive aggressive side, not the darker side of humanity like murdering and hating. It's just ironic that the many games today mimic the latter to appease former.

fango

10-13-2002, 05:23 AM

hey there, i live in a very western world, right now in florida )
so yeah, every game i play and movie i watch is pretty much a product of western culture, i guess.

now the fact that justified violence exists in other cultures doesnt make my statement less true. On the other hand, kung fu movies spawned from a very occidental Hong kong entertainment industry.

now dont get me wrong, i have no problem with violence being used as an entertainment. we all need fantaisies,gunfights are great, slow mo kung fu rocks and so on. I do have issues with any human being portrayed as a disposable object, though., ie Kant's definition of sin.

i remember my nephew playing super soaker with two of his friends. they were all enjoying themselves until one was asked to get on his knees, hands behind his back, ready to get shot execution style. My father, survivor of the cambodian genocide, didn t like that at all, even if the kids were just having fun.
It s really a matter of what you, as an individual, find entertainning. Extreme Graphic violence never appealed to me.

we as consumers have the choice of playing those games or movies, you choose what entertains you. if cracking skulls with a crowbar rocks your boat, all is well.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by MCronin
Just wait until they catch this neighborhood sniper in Virginia. I'll give you 10 to 1 odds he's a fan of Counterstrike. They are going to find a copy of Half Life in this guys bedroom and a whole new assault on video games is going to begin. I am not being sarcastic here, and I don't think video games are necessarily the cause of this type of behaviour, but these type of games certainly aren't "quality" entertainment.

10 to 1 huh? So what does that prove? Maybe he also plays with Barbie dolls, should we ban Barbies?

Originally posted by MCronin
People who defend excessively violent games always bring up the First Ammendment. These games are not works of art, and they aren't political or social statements.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But who decides what is a "work of art"? They are creative works, and they should be made available for mass consumption whether they are "quality" entertainment or not. If you don't like them, you don't have to play them.

Originally posted by MCronin
I don't think they should be banned, but I'm not opposed at all to having actual laws in place (not meaningless unenforceable ratings) which restrict their access to minors.

That's what parents are for. I'm sick of unable parents depending on the government ot be their babysitters. I don't need the government to tell me what's appropriate for my kids (if I had any). Maybe the problem is that parents don't know how to control their kids anymore. There's a rating system on games, that's quite enough.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by googlo
What I think the problem is, is that there is so little real violence in most of our lives that we have no means of relating to it and so enjoy it in things like a game or movie. I'm just saying this because if people had...

Like the hitman game...

It's like my grandpa, he fought in World War II...

That's not the case at all. Whenever people actually are put into real life violent situations their outlook changes...

It's my view that because we are without experience of real loss and real suffering that we can play games like the Hitman or whatever and not really feel disturbed about it because we don't really relate to it...

I agree with all of that. The point is that it's up to the individual whether or not they enjoy these type of games or not. You can't judge them based on it.

Oh, and I really do think that humans have an innate primitive tendency towards violence(not neccessarily murder), especially males. But that's another debate.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by fango
It s really a matter of what you, as an individual, find entertainning.

There is hope for you yet, my friend. That is my whole point.

fango

10-13-2002, 05:40 AM

why thank you :beer:

baahh i ll take tetris over hitman 2 anytime :bounce:

googlo

10-13-2002, 05:44 AM

GRMC,

I agree with all of that. The point is that it's up to the individual whether or not they enjoy these type of games or not. You can't judge them based on it.

Yes but I'm not talking about judging anyone. I think a lot of people feel judged not because someone is judging them pre se, but because they are beginning to look at themselves and judge but for some reason transfer that onto the other person bringing up the issues.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by googlo
GRMC,

Yes but I'm not talking about judging anyone. I think a lot of people feel judged not because someone is judging them pre se, but because they are beginning to look at themselves and judge but for some reason transfer that onto the other person bringing up the issues.

Well I for one have no qualms about playing violent video games, and I think I am quite a well-adjusted individual. In my case, I grew up in a violent neighborhood and got into fight every week when I was younger, but I've grown past that stage. Seeing the stuff I saw as a kid hasn't turned me off from the genre because I know where the line is between fantasy and reality. That's not to say that I'm desensitized to real violence, I'm disgusted everytime I hear about a murder or rape or act of terrorism. I guess it depends on how sensitive you are. If you're the type who is very sensitive than you may find ANY depiction of violence offensive. Most people I think can make the distinction between artifical violence and real violence.

meloncully

10-13-2002, 05:57 AM

i agree totally with googlo.

.oO-cloak-Oo.

10-13-2002, 06:30 AM

Most of the time they have no redeeming qualities what-so-ever other than being mildly entertaining. They are just a vehicle for corporations to suck up your money.

I completely agree with MCRonin's statement here. What good can can from these games? Its really simple...what you put in is what you get out. No matter how strong minded the individual is. If enough time is spent and enjoyed (with anything) the results of it will manifest in his or her life in some way. Whatever you spend time with is ultimately an influence in your life even if its a small influence. Thats just the mechanics of it and a part of being the influenced humans we are.
Think about this...would you want your kid playing a game like this?

MCronin

10-13-2002, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by GRMac13
10 to 1 huh? So what does that prove? Maybe he also plays with Barbie dolls, should we ban Barbies?

My point is only that this sniper, no matter how passive an interest he has in video games is going to fuel the fire for people who want to see violent games banned (of which I am not). I enjoy CS as much as anybody. I played HL and it's mods on almost a daily basis for nearly 18 months.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But who decides what is a "work of art"? They are creative works, and they should be made available for mass consumption whether they are "quality" entertainment or not. If you don't like them, you don't have to play them.

Yes that's my opinion, and maybe this will help you understand it. When the First Ammendment was written, people were not writing books or creating artwork containing decidedly purient or sensational content as a means to make themselves rich. Currently games are not about expressing anything other than how much a publisher wants to fill it's pockets with your money. Games have the potential to be an artform, but the vast majority of them are designed to generate profits, not express an idea, and not as a creative endeavor. I've spent the better part of my adult life making games for a living. I wouldn't be so bold as to call any game a work of art or even an expression of creativity.

That's what parents are for. I'm sick of unable parents depending on the government ot be their babysitters. I don't need the government to tell me what's appropriate for my kids (if I had any). Maybe the problem is that parents don't know how to control their kids anymore. There's a rating system on games, that's quite enough.

No it's not enough. I agree that people should take responsibility for themselves and their children, but many just don't. You don't want children walking into a store and buying alchohol, tobacco, firearms or hardcore pornography, we have laws against it, why should games which the game makers themselves claim are made for adults only be any different?

I'm not a prude who wants to see violent entertainment banned. I like horror films, I enjoy violent games and television shows. I don't want to see governement censorship but I have no problem with the government stepping in and limiting children's exposure to them by law when idiotic parents won't.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by MCronin
Yes that's my opinion, and maybe this will help you understand it. When the First Ammendment was written, people were not writing books or creating artwork containing decidedly purient or sensational content as a means to make themselves rich. Currently games are not about expressing anything other than how much a publisher wants to fill it's pockets of those with your money. Games have the potential to be an artform, but the vast majority of them are designed to generate profits, not express an idea, and not as a creative endeavor. I've spent the better part of my adult life making games for a living. I wouldn't be so bold as to call any game a work of art or even an expression of creativity.

Yes, and at the time the Constitution was written "All men are created equal" did not apply to the black slaves shining the shoes of Mr. Washington and Mr. Johnson. Times change and that document is re-interpreted to encompass new trends in society. This country was founded on the principles of democracy and capitalism. Why then restrict the right of people to make a buck? Vices (especially alcohol and sex) are the best money-makers out there. As long as the people making the products are not violating anyone's rights, they are protected under the Constitution.

Originally posted by MCronin
No it's not enough. I agree that people should take responsibility for themselves and their children, but many just don't. You don't want children walking into a store and buying alchohol, tobacco, firearms or hardcore pornography, we have laws against it, why should games which the game makers themselves claim are made for adults only be any different?

Like I said, we already having a rating system on games (and movies) and that is quite enough. My 15 year old cousin couldn't buy GTA3 at K-B without his mother. What other means of enforcement is there besides banning the games altogether? If the games are rated and parents still buy "M" rated games for their kids, it's their choice to do so.

Originally posted by MCronin
I'm not a prude who wants to see violent entertainment banned. I like horror films, I enjoy violent games and television shows. I don't want to see governement censorship but I have no problem with the government stepping in and limiting children's exposure to them by law when idiotic parents won't.

Again, how do you expect the government to play guardian angel without censoring the content itself? The government needs to recognize when to butt out of people's lives.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by .oO-cloak-Oo.
I completely agree with MCRonin's statement here. What good can can from these games? Its really simple...what you put in is what you get out. No matter how strong minded the individual is. If enough time is spent and enjoyed (with anything) the results of it will manifest in his or her life in some way. Whatever you spend time with is ultimately an influence in your life even if its a small influence. Thats just the mechanics of it and a part of being the influenced humans we are.
Think about this...would you want your kid playing a game like this?

What good can come of it? What does that matter? What good comes out of riding a roller-coaster or going into a Haunted House? It's entertainment, nothing more. Trying to imply that it has some immense psychological effect is ridiculous. People who are strong-minded, well-adjusted individuals are perfectly capable of playing these games with NO adverse effects. The people who grow up to be murders/rapists/etc. usually have alot of other influences than a video game to drive them to their crimes. If a kid is sitting in his house 24 hours a day playing GTA3, he probably has some social disorder that prevents him from interacting with his peers. My point is, if someone that's mentally disturbed enough to commit murder wasn't playing video games they'd prob be blowing up the neighbor's cat or poisoning squirrels. The games industry is just a scapegoat for poor parenting, inefficient educational institutions and horrible social services.

MCronin

10-13-2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by GRMac13
Yes, and at the time the Constitution was written "All men are created equal" did not apply to the black slaves shining the shoes of Mr. Washington and Mr. Johnson. Times change and that document is re-interpreted to encompass new trends in society. This country was founded on the principles of democracy and capitalism. Why then restrict the right of people to make a buck? Vices (especially alcohol and sex) are the best money-makers out there. As long as the people making the products are not violating anyone's rights, they are protected under the Constitution.

The United States was founded on the principles of Demeocracy, not Capitalism. No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are citizens of the US guaranteed the right to "make a buck". I don't recall even the mention of a free market anywhere in the Constitution. Capitalism is a by-product of Democracy, not a right.

Like I said, we already having a rating system on games (and movies) and that is quite enough. My 15 year old cousin couldn't buy GTA3 at K-B without his mother. What other means of enforcement is there besides banning the games altogether? If the games are rated and parents still buy "M" rated games for their kids, it's their choice to do so..

The means of enforcement is the same as it is for tobacco, firearms, alchohol or pornography. Fines, loss of state and municipal business licenses, and possible prosecution and jailtime for retailers who violate the law and sell objectionable games to children. The rating system isn't law, it's just an advisory. Retailers are free to sell whatever games they want to children, some don't because they have an image to maintain.

Again, how do you expect the government to play guardian angel without censoring the content itself? The government needs to recognize when to butt out of people's lives.

See above. I agree that less government is better for everyone, but regulating the sale of overly violent games to children isn't trampling anyone's rights or unduly intruding into anyone's life. As an American adult you will still be free to play all the violent games you want. You could even play that Neo-Nazi first person shooter if you wanted. You are an adult capable of making up your own mind of what is appropriate entertainment for you.

Kricket

10-13-2002, 07:24 AM

I find it incredibly disturbing when this kind of finger pointing begins. Something terrible happens and they want to take away violent video games and movies.

What's next? Music, Pen & Paper RPGs, Looney Tunes (watch Roadrunner cartoons too much and ppl will become desensitized to throwing animals off of cliffs). Maybe after that they'll start burning inappropriate books.

I've been playing video games all my life and I was raised on violent movies.. I am desensitized to violence - *fictional* violence. When I see ppl on the 6 o clock news murdered I feel sick to my stomach.

Some people are wired for violence, have been for centuries. Even if you raise people in a safe Sesame Street world you'll still get a few who get their jollies by hurting others.

Place age limits on games - cool. If stores dont want to carry violent games or movies - fine, can understand that. their decision. But never take away my right to play or create those kinds of games.

Kricket
http://demented3d.com

.oO-cloak-Oo.

10-13-2002, 07:40 AM

What good can come of it? What does that matter? What good comes out of riding a roller-coaster or going into a Haunted House? It's entertainment, nothing more. Trying to imply that it has some immense psychological effect is ridiculous. People who are strong-minded, well-adjusted individuals are perfectly capable of playing these games with NO adverse effects. The people who grow up to be murders/rapists/etc. usually have alot of other influences than a video game to drive them to their crimes. If a kid is sitting in his house 24 hours a day playing GTA3, he probably has some social disorder that prevents him from interacting with his peers. My point is, if someone that's mentally disturbed enough to commit murder wasn't playing video games they'd prob be blowing up the neighbor's cat or poisoning squirrels. The games industry is just a scapegoat for poor parenting, inefficient educational institutions and horrible social services.

Try reading my post again...or maybe slower. I never said or implied it has an "immense psychological effect" I only stated or implied that whatever you spend time with will effect you consciousely or sub-consciousely in a big way or in a miniscule way. Its unavoidable. The more time you spend with something the more it effects you. Its in your makeup...cant avoid it. Sorry.
Dont get me wrong...I enjoy UT2K as much as the next guy, but where do you draw the line? Wheres the the point where you have gone to far? Or the game companies have gone too far?
Would you say the the pic I posted is excessive? I do.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by MCronin
The means of enforcement is the same as it is for tobacco, firearms, alchohol or pornography. Fines, loss of state and municipal business licenses, and possible prosecution and jailtime for retailers who violate the law and sell objectionable games to children. The rating system isn't law, it's just an advisory. Retailers are free to sell whatever games they want to children, some don't because they have an image to maintain.

You've gotta be kidding me. You want to put people in prison for selling certain video games to kids? Where is the justification for that? Who gets hurt by these kids because they've played these games? There is NO conclusive evidence showing that violent games lead directly to violent crimes. These kids aren't going to go shoot someone with their copy of Hitman2. There is no need for such a law, this sort of thing is up to the private sector to decide. Morality laws are just a way for one (very priviledged) segment of society to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. People deserve the right to decide what's best for them.

By the way, should we do the same at movie theaters? If a guy takes his 16 year-old son to see "The Matrix" are we going to lock up the 16 year-old kid who sold them the ticket? It's just an ineffective and uneccessarily restrictive idea.

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by .oO-cloak-Oo.
Try reading my post again...or maybe slower. I never said or implied it has an "immense psychological effect" I only stated or implied that whatever you spend time with will effect you consciousely or sub-consciousely in a big way or in a miniscule way.

Umm yea, "consciousely or sub-consciousely" are terms that describe a psychological state buddy.

Immense is another way of saying "in a big way."

Just thought I'd help you out there. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by .oO-cloak-Oo.
Would you say the the pic I posted is excessive?

Nope. Even if I did, I wouldn;t suggest that it be restricted or banned. Again, it's up to the individual to decide.

edit:
Originally posted by .oO-cloak-Oo.
where do you draw the line? Wheres the the point where you have gone to far?

Everyone has a different idea of where that "line" is, so who are you to say "oh that's going to far!" Yeah, for you it may be, so turn the other cheek. For others,. it may not. Why deprive them of it because you feel it's over the top?

WannaB

10-13-2002, 08:17 AM

First of all.. entertainment can be sick at times. Entertainment is entertainment! They make porn for entertainment for the average lathargic stay at home anti-social guy. Is the porn industry making money? yea of coarse. Don't matter how you think about it you can make almost any game/movie/music as violent, disturbing, and just down right wrong as you want.. I garentee some sick bastard wil buy it. As for games keep the violence comming! I don't mind.. just the only thing that tells me there has to be a stop to it is when you see little kids drawing pictures of guns in there 4th grade class. Why are they drawing guns? games/music/movies? yea exactly..but my point is just like alchol you can get it till your 21. That is somewhat inforced. Do you know why that put ratings on games, movies and music? To keep the 4th grade kid drawing barney instead of guns on his binder. Ratings are ment to keep younger age's from being able to have such violent things. So why not use them? they somewhat dont they? If you have the argument that little kids will STILL get the violence somehow...blame the parents for giving there kids such things. Blame the parents for leting little Bobby have the huge collections of porn his computer.. your the one who gave it to him to begin with!

Theres my 2 cents

.oO-cloak-Oo.

10-13-2002, 08:22 AM

Umm yea, "consciousely or sub-consciousely" are terms that describe a psychological state buddy. Immense is another way of saying "in a big way." Just thought I'd help you out there.

Way to point out the obvious. Good job. :applause: You concluded on your own that it effects people "immensely". I was only pointing out that it CAN effect someone in an undesired "immense" way OR in a miniscule way, but nonetheless it effects you whether you like it or not. Anyways, you misinterperted what I said and read what you wanted to read...time to move on.

In the end voilence and games arent likely to go anywhere, so you can relax. It will be up to the parents to take responsibility for what their kids have access to. I regeret ever getting into this as this thread will unlikely have any positive resolve. My final words on the matter. Cheers.

Per-Anders

10-13-2002, 08:37 AM

is it really the individuals responsibility to choose whether or not they should play this "game"... i'll put it another way. you read a book... if it's a good book do you get into it? does it affect you in any way? even though you know it's a book, you like that book because you empathise and feel it. So thing is, you're going to want to buy more books in that vein perhaps, or by that author, but whatever more books that you "get into". Now it's true that certain things affect some poeple more than others. By and large people who're not affected by computer games... aren't going to be the ones playing those games. Most people out there will be playing a game cos, well... they can get into it. So if they're getting into it, then are you going to argue it's not affecting them? They will always choose to get something they can "get into" but should they always have that choice?

Isn't it the function of society to... well... be a society? Rather than a group of individuals, sometimes individuals have to sacrifice their individuality/"rights" to be a part of society. Isn't it societies role to choose what is acceptable and what is not, not based on the values of the individual, but on the needs of the group? Once we go into the society of the individual... there'll be no society left at all.

The people who play these games, aren't going to stop playing them so long as they're available. Often it doesnt even matter if on all criteria as a game they suck (playability, graphics, sound, plotline) it's what those poeple want to get into. So, just because they want to get into that, is that a good reason to let them? Acceptance of the unacceptable isn't progression, it's not a moral victory for the rights of the individual. If people could see beyond themselves then we'd have utopia, but so long as people can't we need society, and all it's laws, rules and regulations. Some people just can't look after themselves.

WannaB

10-13-2002, 08:45 AM

well put mdme_sadie

:applause: :applause: :thumbsup: :applause: :applause:

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
Acceptance of the unacceptable isn't progression, it's not a moral victory for the rights of the individual.

I'll ask it again, who decides what is "acceptable" and what's not? Nobody seems to have a resonable answer.

fango

10-13-2002, 09:21 AM

weird. i m taking my modeling pause and read how this thread was hijacked. The original question was why our entertainment industry is growing more and more violent and does it reflect a behavior in individuals or a trend in society in general.
i added that entertainment suppliers tend to justify violence to make it more acceptable : means the targetted audience somewhere in the society they live in think justified violence is acceptable.

then , somehow, the tread went to "video games do not trigger violent behaviors". weird, no one said that and obviously, a statistical relationship between violent entertainment and violent crimes is not necessarily causal. on the other hand, no one can prove it s not. so it s really a closed debate, wonder why people just jump to it.

question still remains. you can now play a hitman, beat up prostitutes with a baseball bat, you can even wear the swatiskas as a nazi soldier. why is violence such a perfect selling argument and where do you draw the line ?

Kricket

10-13-2002, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by fango
question still remains. you can now play a hitman, beat up prostitutes with a baseball bat, you can even wear the swatiskas as a nazi soldier. why is violence such a perfect selling argument and where do you draw the line ?

If something is released that is incredibly offensive to everyone (say something like a child-torture sim) then no one will buy it. That's how consumers draw the line.

In games like GTA 3 you're given the freedom to choose wether or not you beat a prostitute or old lady with a baseball bat. It's up to you.

Some developers go out of their way to remove offensive material, in RTCW if you play Axis you play as a german soldier. NOT a nazi. (there's a difference) You wont see any swastikas or pictures of Hitler in any of the multiplayer maps, they're only in the single-player when you're kicking nazi butt.

CIM

10-13-2002, 10:00 AM

http://vwdesign.hypermart.net/Other/Images/mgwhore.gif

DotPainter

10-13-2002, 01:00 PM

Well as far as drawing the line goes, I think that the line has already been drawn(even though many don't know it). Any society will create codes to live by and these codes or morays are used to determine how someone should go about their daily lives. In Victorian America, a woman showing her leg in public would have violated the social morays of the time and possibly branded the woman as .... less than womanly. Nowadays, Americans as a group are much more tolerant of many forms of public expression, thought and artistic creativity. However it seems that there has been a line concerning the child-rapist sims mentioned earlier in the thread.

If you ever take a look at the Japanese video game industry, there are a large number of pornographic video games and a large part of those titles fall into man-woman-child-raper sims. (I am not kidding either!) In these games you go through various environments, playgrounds, etc and try and lure girls into taking their clothes off. Now, most of these games remind me of the old hotel lobby game in America where your character went into a hotel and tried to get to the penthouse with this hot chick. A lot of them use a mix of animated and still anime style graphics along with 3d cg. Another variation on this theme is the battle-raper sim where you fight (a la Virtua Fighter or Dead or Alive) just like any 3d fighter game. However, if you win against a female opponent, you can then try to rape the beaten female and fondle her. As far as I know, these PC games will not run under english windows. Wonder why these titles never made it here? This also shows how another society can tolerate that what we may find unacceptable.

http://shop.himeya.com/

Harrad

10-13-2002, 07:32 PM

I think that some of you need to calm down. One of the best games in all time (IMO) is GTA for playstation 2. Half the time, i don't do the missions. i just get in a car and run people over or get some guns and go round shooting someone. Not because i messed in the head. but because it funny, its fun to play. that dosn't mean that i'm going to then go out and start shooting people. i would find it hard to punch someone let alone run them over. Its like the movies, for 2 hours you can become some one else.

events like 9.11 and the shooting in the US. happen due to mental problems and religous beliefs. and to blame it one music, computer games and films, is crap. humans have been killing each other for way longer than films, computer games and music got a darker edge to it.

And if you think that they have a bigger infulence on people, why is it that there are very few plummers running around jumping on mushrooms. and people braking in to random song and dance in the street!

the only bad thing about it would be timming. When something bad happens, then its only fare to the familes of the victims to give them some respect and delay a film or comp game with a similar event in them.

But what ever happens someone somewhere is always going to be pissed at something you have or havn't done!

-Matt

Gilgamesh

10-13-2002, 07:53 PM

The thing that always gets me about this argument is the hypocrasy within society. Watch the news, and right after you see someone blaming the east coast sniper on video games you get to see footage of bombs falling on Iraq. Violence is definately glorified in our society, so long as it is properly channeled. I've never heard anyone complaining about Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon. Granted, those games weren't nearly as graphic, but they were certainly realistic. The difference is who you are supposed to be killing. Even just watching basic television these days, I see more commercials for the U.S. Army and Navy than for video games.
I agree, however, that there is a difference between that and mowing down pedestrians in GTA3. I don't want to make the argument that violence is a good thing to promote, but we're on the verge of a war right now, and I have a hard time taking any anti-violence arguments seriously, especially if they are coming from the US government or courts.
I think the world would be a better place if Bush and Saddam just sat down to a game of Warcraft 3 or counterstrike to settle their differences. Both those guys need a goddamn outlet.

MCronin

10-13-2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by GRMac13
You've gotta be kidding me. You want to put people in prison for selling certain video games to kids? Where is the justification for that? Who gets hurt by these kids because they've played these games? There is NO conclusive evidence showing that violent games lead directly to violent crimes. These kids aren't going to go shoot someone with their copy of Hitman2. There is no need for such a law, this sort of thing is up to the private sector to decide. Morality laws are just a way for one (very priviledged) segment of society to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. People deserve the right to decide what's best for them.

By the way, should we do the same at movie theaters? If a guy takes his 16 year-old son to see "The Matrix" are we going to lock up the 16 year-old kid who sold them the ticket? It's just an ineffective and uneccessarily restrictive idea.

Putting people in prison is really just a deterrent. It's possible to get yourself jailtime for selling alchohol to minors, but I don't think anyone has ever really been sent to prison for it. It'd be for people who knowingly, willfully and repeatedly broke the law. In the case of selling alchohol or pornography to a child, the usual means of enforcement is fines and or suspension or loss of business licenses. If the person knowingly and willfully violates the law they can be prosecuted for contibuting to the delinquency of a minor and would probably sentenced to community service if convicted, not prison time, but the threat is there. If you really want your kids to play violent games or consume alchoholic beverages in your home it's your prerogative. The point of a law like this would be to keep children from walking into their local mom and pop video store or game store and buying or renting a game intended for adult audiences without their parent's permission. The only way to at least attempt to prevent this is to create legal repercussions for people who create and distribute these games and market and sell them to children. The games industry has demonstrated repeatedly that they aren't capable of regulating themselves.

The rating system on games is a joke put in place to placate the government and concerned citizens. I don't know who the games industry thinks they are fooling. You couldn't make a movie that featured 1000 gruesome murders in graphic deatail and expect to get anything less than an NC-17 rating, and expect to have this movie shown in theaters or on the shelf of your local blockbuster, much less be able to market it to kids. Yet games that allow you to not only witness but participate in this type of act are freely available to children everywhere. It's morally reprehensible. The game industry covers it's as by saying "Hey we put a little sticker on it." There is no scientific study that can draw a straight line from violent video games to violent behaviour, but there also is no evidence that proves violent games are good for your mental health, and in no way affect the people who play them either.

Again, I'm not talking about censoring or banning these games, I'm talking about some sort of regulation and enforcement so it's not so easy for children to obtain and play these games without their parent's consent or knowledge. Parents have the responsibility of monitoring their children's activities, but realisticly there is only so much even the best parents can do. They don't need game company's undermining them to turn a profit. These game companies and retailers are out to make a buck anyway they can, they have no regard for what's in the best interest of children or their parents and we can't expect them to. They do however care about their bottom line, and if there were financial penalties for the distribution of adult games to children, they'd suddenly be very concerned about the type of material they were making and marketing to kids.

Per-Anders

10-13-2002, 09:50 PM

GRMac what is acceptable... well put it this way. how would you like other people to treat you? Now why should your behaviour be any different towards them? Who or what gives you the right?

Morality... do you feel comfortable living with the person that takes your actions? If you were another person, and you looked at your own life and the way you live. Would you be proud? What would you be proud of? Why would you be proud of it? Would you feel uncomfortable at certain actions you'd taken? Not from the "oh god that's so embarrasing!" (although sometimes), but from the.... "something about that is creepy when you look at it like that".

Now who decides? Do you? Do you honestly think you have the right to decide GRMac? Are you responsible enough? What lies within the realm of your own responsibility. I'll tell you who decides. Those whom are responsible for us. In a company your boss decides what's acceptable behaviour, based on the needs of the individuals underneath him as a whole. Why are they responsible for us? Because within a society pretty early on humans found out that "Because I want to" kinda violated too many other peoples rights. Every single persons perogative will inherently tread on the next mans toes. To try to see the argument from all sides, you're not being balanced and objective. You're just treading on [b]everyones[.b] toes. Who decides are the people that by common consent we decide to be our leaders/heroes/role models. People like to think that they're individuals, but really we're not. The cult of the individual is something that has been expedited from the existentialist backlash that was the 1960's. You wanna be a bad boy? Where does that come from? Look back to the rude boys on the corners in the 1920's. Is that morally acceptable? A gang member would say "You know if i get whacked then that's life" that's merely acceptance of the unacceptable, also isn't it a little bit worrying that in parts of society this has become acceptable. However it's still despite what they might say unacceptable behaviour. If a gang member gets shot and killed, if it really was a acceptable as perhaps they might say... why does the rest of the gang go for revenge? So here's the thing you cast a stone. You say "This is acceptable cos i'd think it's cool to behave like this" you don't understand the differenve between what's cool to happen to someone else, and what's cool to happen to you. When this thing then happens and it's not so cool, you get pissed. It can be a small thing, it annoys you. It can even be something as simple as your flatmate cutting their toes in the living room rather than the bathroom. You might do the same, then one day your parents come around. Your flatmate comes in and starts clipping there in front of your parents. So... what's the deal there? You both think it's cool to do that. Neither of you have a problem. So do you have a problem cos he/she's doing this in front of your parents? Why? What's changed? Are you going to be the one to lay down the law and say "Hey bud, it's cool, but just not when anyone else is here alright?" it might be common sense to you, but is it to them? So what if it isn't. Where does the buck stop? Who's gotta say what's acceptable and what's not? Would that be you then? Why is it you? So if it's you then... in this situation... what would you say to your flatmate when they say "What's it to you? Who are you to decide what I do? Who are you to decide what's acceptable?". Now you may think that people can control themselves. But just look out there and you'll see that they cant. We elect people to be in charge of our society, because we want the benifits of having a society. Things like safety, and in fact rules that say cutting your toenails in front of my parents in the living room is gross (or to put it another way, unnacceptable). Those that we elect are the ones to decide what's acceptable and what isn't. How do they decide? By listening to us the people. They'd go just as do-lally as any individual who's left alone (it's kinda like having a render farm with different fpus, at the start there's not much difference between frames, but after a while there's a huge variation, cos nothing pulling everything back into line), hence the term all power corrupts, absolute power absolutely corrupts. Unfortunately, people have taken that term being the highly bright species of hominid that we are, and have drawn a line from that, making a huge leap to a conclusion... anyone in power is evil, everything they want to do is oppress and abuse me and my rights. That's wrong. We elect representatives who decide. We want a police force who stop individuals for deciding for us what's acceptable... i wouldn't want an individual deciding that it's acceptable to go out and shoot people, and then for nothing to be done about it. Hell one of those people who gets shot might be me, and I've spent enough time thinking over death to think that i don't want none of that just yet. I'd rather have a police state than a criminal one. I don't think the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. I think you're an individual, but i've seen too many individuals claim their responsible, and should be the ones to choose what's acceptable and what's not... and next thing they're laying into someone else in a way that they'd certainly not like happening to them.

In answer to your question then. Who decides, are the people who we elect on merit of balanced thought to look after us, to watch over each other, and who can see the bigger picture. In effect our moral guides, our government and policing agencies.

Jhonus

10-13-2002, 09:52 PM

Good post gilgamesh... I was trying to think of way of saying something like that without sounding like a hippy. The truth is that computer games are the least of your moral dilemma's. There are real things going on which pale in comparison.

Anyway, onto the real issue... they could have a huge WC3 Lan game Saddam and Araft vs Bush and Sharon. Maybe chuck in a representive of Al Qaeda. (Its probably not practical for Osama to join in, unless he has a decent wireless connection.)

Chewey

10-13-2002, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
snip

In answer to your question then. Who decides, are the people who we elect on merit of balanced thought to look after us, to watch over each other, and who can see the bigger picture. In effect our moral guides, our government and policing agencies.

Hitler was elected. Having a great constitution and a bill of rights has some effect the last time I looked. No system is perfect it's just that some are closer to it than others.

robot9000

10-14-2002, 12:51 AM

We live in a world where beating your child is aired 24/7 and killing people in a virtual world is wrong! robot9000 does not compute!
:surprised

Cadillacs57

10-14-2002, 01:02 AM

ok, there are ratings for video games, there are some laws in certain state that doesn't allow to sell certain games to people, but that is not the real problem here.....
sometime ago i was checking a cool movie, keanu reeves was in it, he was the kind of kid who didnt had parents and he just was in the "rebel ages" but he actually said something very clever and intelligent.
"people needs license to drive, license to hunt, but any idiot can be a father"
guns dont kill people, morons and stupid jerks with no knowledge at all of what tha **** are they doing kills people.
video games doesnt kill people, stupid parents with no knowledge at all on how to raise theyre kids and teach then how using a gun to kill is the most bad thing in the world kills people :D
the excuse of saying how a game made a guy kill someone is the most PATHETIC excuse ive ever heard, if parents dont know how to raise theyre children.... just remember some kids lives in a ****ing cratebox without knowing anything about the world or values about it, so you can say to him "you are ugly" with stupid voice, and the guy is going to take revenge with a shotgun, buuaaaaaaaaaaaaaa daddy, he called me ugly!!! i had to kill him!
there is a lot of people ****ed up, i know, but certainly there are loads, TONS OF parents who dont know shit about children neither....

KingMob

10-14-2002, 01:09 AM

I agree that all controversial material should be banned.

wait no I don't. Movies, Games and the like just need rating, people who are to insane to realize the difference will use ANY excuse to go on a killing rampage. I am from Colorado, a broken home, and was moved away from my friends as a Kid. Oh did I mention I love games liek hitman, GTA 3 and doom.

Yet i never even THOUGHT of bringing a gun to school, or shooting random people on the way to work...because I am not crazy (well not THAT crazy).

It's easy to blame video games, movies, and tv for these people, but lets not forget that violence was around a lot longer than any of these things.

Hitman is based on things that people have done...GTA is the same way (to a degree). Games emulate life, not the other way around.

and Rant is over ... now.

slice56

10-14-2002, 01:14 AM

its just this simple, you do not need any more explanation than this:

IF you play these games, and you believe that they are "real life", and you think that it is okay to go out and do this in real life, then there is something wrong with you, and you have been brought up wrong in life. Thats what it is all about; it's all about how your parents brought you up. If you were brought up in a good environment, and you were taught right from wrong, then you would never even have the idea to go out and do something like this, but if your parents were idiots, and they didnt do anything to teach you, like they are obligated to, then you might have some problems. Im not saying that if your parents were never there for you, that you will go out and shoot ppl, im just saying that there is more of a chance that you will not know right from wrong, and therefore commit acts like that of what is going on today in the US (sniper shootings). Anyway, all im saying is that these are video GAMES, keyword being GAMES, and if you do not know the difference b/w games and real life, then you are heading down the wrong track. Good day...

noisewar

10-14-2002, 01:16 AM

1) Violent games/movies/media does not make anyone significantly more violent who wasn't receptive to violence to begin with. Inherently violent people are going to be violent whether it be through video games, movies, medieval jousts, roman gladiatorial combat, or anything.

2) As for freedom of speech, you freedom to that goes only so far as you can reach with your hands. Beyond that, you'll just have to bow down to the fact that our country places the lives of its countryman FIRST over your 1st amendment rights. That order is dangerously to mix-up.

3) Of course, everything is subjective, our country knows that, and so ultimately, the final decisions we make on gray areas tend to lean towards the conservative. Yes we presume innocence, but at the same time we predict the worst for things we don't know the consequences of. That explains why you congress is slower than ass, why you can't yell "Fire!" for fun, you can't say you wanna kill the president, and why your new, violent, zany idea will meet public criticism if they have no reference for its potential consequences.

IMHO

PhilWesson

10-14-2002, 01:16 AM

violence is nothing new. and there is no reason to start pointing fingers about where it comes from, and how to stop it by banning/outlawing this or that.
Did Jack the Ripper play violent games? Doubt it.

KingMob

10-14-2002, 01:17 AM

amen to that slice, amen to that

Zukum

10-14-2002, 01:30 AM

http://www.pvponline.com

my 2 centavos

10-14-2002, 01:35 AM

Good God, you leave a few cans lying around and pretty soon you're up to your arse in worms... :D

Gun culture already exists throughout the film industry. Games use same appeal. Games are violent. Violence sells games. Johnny shoots Billies knees off with a shotgun. Parents blame Mario. Media follows suit.

It's not going to change for a while.

On a side note (but relevant), I saw the most offensive display of televisual crap I've ever seen. There was a 'Drama' program on ITV/BBC here in the UK and it had a scene where a child was playing a 'violent videogame' on his Dad's PC. The 'game' (that the production company had created for the program) consisted of a photo of a person on the right of the screen and buttons on the left labelled "knife", "Chainsaw", Gun"...etc. - The kid pushed one of the buttons and the person died in that manner (badly). All the time the kid was bouncing up an down spewing dialog such as "Got Him!", "Yeah! There's his guts!", "Cool! Blood! Radical! Rip it off! Awesome...etc."

Now that's practically propeganda.

Did Jack the Ripper play violent games? Doubt it

He played hopscotch and marbles.

KingMob

10-14-2002, 01:42 AM

marbles is a very violent game...it's like mugging, you hit the others person balls and then keep them....um wait that's nto mugging that's just sick..and odd.

googlo

10-14-2002, 01:49 AM

I'm not talking about censorship or the hypocrisy of violence in the different forms of media and real life. I'm just wanted to know what people thought about a game like this beyind just getting the thrill of playing it but actually standing back and looking at it from a like an observer of society kind of thing.

When you really think about, these kinds of games didn't exist essentially 12 years ago. So how can people really say that games aren't effecting society when there really hasn't been enough time to see?

I think games are a reflection of the times, just like movies and anything else mass produced for culture are. I think these kinds of games are but a leaf on a much bigger 'plant' that is the problem.

I'm trying to look at this from a sociological persepective. Life for example if you look at the movies of the 80's and late 70's you can definitely see how people were feeling about the future from the type of movies that were produced. In light of the threat from the Cold War and possible world nuclear war, a lot of movies were built around fantasies of stone age type of societies like Conan the Barbarian and as the world was was on the cusp of the new information computerage, a lot of movies were produced concerning those fears too. Just like the 40's and 50's where all kinds of fantasy movies were about monsters from radiation and general burgeoning of 'mass' scientific awareness.

But back to the games. Hitmen 2 is just an example. But have you noticed that a lot of these types of games are getting more graphic, more criminal and anti-social? It's definitely pointing to something. I know the average gamer doesn't care, but a lot of people don't ever look up at the stars or the moon and ever think about their lifes beyond their circle of friends, what they wear, or what's happening on the weekend.

People can look at the short term and say it's nothing, but that is completely shortsighted. Like the frog in boiling water that doesn't realize the water is heating up enough to kill it becuase it's so gradual.

Maybe for you or me a game like this doesn't mean anything, but the effects of it and why stuff like this is happening (not just in games) is a sign of something much bigger and more implicit going on than we realize beyond our own self-centered worlds.

Society and the people that make it up are like a feedback loop. Individuals influence society, but society also influences the individual.

I'll give you an example of what I mean:

One of the banes of pop culture is that it's destroys creativity just as much as it promotes it, becauase it's en masse. So if you have a bunch of kids growing up obsessing themselves with the current trends of music, clothing, etc, their time is spent becoming that instead of becoming their own and promoting their own ideas. This is really a new idea that is just starting to be studied and the effects it might have on the evolution of a society.

I know why people want to say that games like Hitmen 2 don't influence people in any deviant manner, but do you honestly think people can say that objectively when they admit to growing up on those kinds of games?

The fact is that 40 years ago, this kind of violent entertainment would have been appalling, even the stuff done in movies, music, etc. . That past had crappy isssues as well with certain kinds of awareness.

Now this is just an idea, I'm not trying to say games make killers:

Doesn't it seem rational to hypothesize that within the climate we have today in society where violence (whether it's in games, movies or music) is so infused throughout the entertainment industry that it can only lead to a general increase of tolerance for it where normally it would not be so?

We aren't talking about real life, we are talking about entertainment.

People keep saying that to censor or remove this kind of motivation of media content would be hiding the truth about real life, which is true within the context that violence does take place in the world, but the manner in which it does is completely different.

I mean actually think about it!

If you had a kid, would you want him/her to play a game where they inacted the life of a hitman where they took people out and could generally brutallize people? For fun!!

Hypothetically it just sounds completely rediculous!

Does it sound mature for an adult to spend his/her moments of limited life running around and knifing people in a virutal world?

It actually sound completely insane if you look at if from an outside perspective.

Most people will say it's just a game and no big deal, but considering that most of us have literally grown up with these kinds of games, it's not necessarily an objective view. We could be effected by it in ways we don't realize because we are too much a part of it.

It seems only rational that there has to be some collective consequence of all of this.

ckaos@om

10-14-2002, 01:58 AM

:annoyed:
blahh, the same sterile debate over and over again !
What astounds me the most is that no one ever seems to question the availabilty of firearms for almost everyone in the states ( not only, but mostly...) : helloow !! : how do you kill someone with a video game ? By throwing a cd at his/her face ?
Whack him with the box ??
So, games in wich you kill people are baad, but games in wich you exploit people, or in wich you massacre whole 'local cultures' etc are good ? The constant propaganda in games ( about 99%) is more then tyring...
>>back to the subject Violence in videogames is only a mere, pale and completely unimportant byproduct of the reactonary gun blazing' culture! ( which in turn is one of the many completely mad manifestations of 'our' wonderfull western capitalistic democracies ...)
And as usual, the media will not got to the core of the problem, as it is not in their interest: this debate as many others is no debate at all : however violent games may be, they will never kill ..oh except of course if they are used to train all those ' nice soldier guys out there"
my 2cents ...

btw, good point Gilgamesh !

Vic3k

10-14-2002, 01:58 AM

how could this even last for 4 pages??!!

GRMac13 and alike :beer:

sorry but stfu the rest for being the negative byproduct of "western (american) culture."

for god's sake, they are just games. either it's barby doll, tetris or freaking doom with bunch of guts. don't like them, don't play them, and stop convincing others of otherwise solutions.

i wonder why there is so much violence going on in north america :caugh: usa. and why so many in the world dislike it.
isn't it supposed to be standard of democracy? all the freedom is
illusion and if you happen to think otherwise then it's your choice.
it's called "a horde behaviour" where the population, in this case, gives in to governments' ideal and values and to whatever is passes by a bill. soviet union have fallen and so will USA till something better comes, but the cycle goes on forever and what you are discussing here are the counterparts of the next spark of violently, artificually driven evlolution of human race towards extinction.

verdict is: laws are laws and we need them, but we don't need the most pathetic ones to laught about.

and plz plz plz don't respond to me coz i already can see all the content of those next 10 replys.

plz ppl have some sense and stop making an elephant out of a bee.

ckaos@om just read you and

:beer: :love:

DJ Bindhi

10-14-2002, 01:58 AM

Alright here's my position, as if we don't have enough of those already. I've no problem with ratings and more importantly with ratings that have legal consequence (i.e. they are more than mere guidelines). So if the rating system becomes more sophisticated and can subject violators say to fines (jailtime imho is too strict for games as the causal link between video game, as opposed to alcohol/firearms and the like, with deleterious behavior and tragic consequences is far too tenuous.)

As far as I can tell, there's been no substantive discussion of the uniquely engaging sensory experience game violence can be. We are not discussing static or passive entertainment media such as literature or even some movies.

We are discussing a relatively new frontier fraught with wild possibilities given the ultra real and interactive content of many games. This is not the debate over passively empathising with a morally bankrupt protagonist like that of Lolita in the 60's. This is the debate concerning a technology that transports us into a "virtual" reality that is ever increasingly less "virtual" and more real. Mere intuition tell us that given the average daily consumption of utlra violent video games among youths and others, coupled with the mind's naturally tendency to internalize anything you spend that kind of time with, a potentially disastrous scenario is on our hands. In addition, the technology promises to evolve to a point that the distinction between "realities," which is so heavily realied upon to justify the absolute marketing freedom, will be rendered simply inadequate. These games play on deep seated human instincts that are repressed due to both societal upbringing and the clear recognition of the boundaries between society and the game. But what happens when the distinction becomes less obvious?

Having no restrictions on ultra violent or explicit content is not prudent, but neither is outright censorship for the various reasons pointed out earlier imho. A balanced form of responsible regulation is the hallmark of any reasonable and successful society, which is seen and felt in a variety of arenas. Given the enormously compelling content of ultra real video games, the need and benefits of such regulation should not be discounted.

Ok if anyone read all that your are my greatest hero, rant over thanks for tuning in.

dies-irae

10-14-2002, 02:01 AM

before zukum's link changes...
http://www.pvponline.com/archive/2002/pvp20021013.gif

i doubt that the increase of violence in videogames/movies truly affects our behaviour. A bad guy is a bad guy even if he didn't play carmageddon, i dont think that showing ways to hurt other people (or cows) pushes someone towards violence. If the only way one person solves any conflict (be it personal, material or whatever) is through violence, that person will hurt or kill or destroy; and that was true in Middle Age as it is now.
There is not more violence than before, we just happen to be more aware of it...

So, computer games tend to violence, that's because more complicate type of games are too difficult to play, people want to be immersed in the games as soon as possible (and having to type "show the carrot to the sheep" isn't exactly the funniest/fastest way to enjoy a game...). Did you ever think about the fact that there arent adventure(sierra-like) games anymore? The fastest way to convoy entertainment is through the strongest emotions: anger, love. For love, you get the pokemons, you can collect them, pet them and exchange them, but the things love-related that you can put in a videogame tend to be too few (ok, lets forget lula the virtual babe...), so you have to put some "anger" stuff (that's why pokemon fight each other...)
As for the anger, what best method than giving the gamer the chance to shout "let's kill some nazie!!" ?!

PhilWesson

10-14-2002, 02:04 AM

i think everyone here should watch existenz w/ jude law.

googlo

10-14-2002, 02:15 AM

The only thing bothering me about this thread are the people who don't seem to be commenting within the context of the post title.

It's not meant to be about game censorship or that games cause people to be violent. But a lot of people keep brining up that tired arguement anyway when that's not the main point of this thread in the first place.

Chewey

10-14-2002, 02:18 AM

Hitler liked to drink milk.
Maybe we should outlaw that too?

Gilgamesh

10-14-2002, 02:24 AM

googlo, that's some great writing, and good points.

I just wanted to suggest another scenario, just to fan the flames. What if violent video games are a deterrent to violence on a large scale? I suppose it is possible that the violence presented in video games is just enough to satisfy the curiosity of the masses so that they don't experiment with it in real life. Violence is such a part of human nature (arguable, but just take a look through human history) but now if you have ever wanted to know what it is like to knife someone in the back and not feel pity, you can just fire up your computer.

bored alien

10-14-2002, 02:24 AM

Man dies after playing video games for 86 hours straight. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/10/1034061260831.html)
Thought this might relate to the topic at hand because it's an extreme example of the same idea. Are video games responsible for this man's death? I don't think so. If people are going to make bad choices like that, they have plenty of venues -- including video games. On the other hand if they are going to be interested in violence I think video games CAN help them develop those tendencies. It's just like if someone is interested in astronomy and they spend all their time reading astronomy books -- it's going to have an effect on how much they know about astronomy. Of course people can learn more about violence through violent video games! But it's still based on the person and what sort of tendencies he/she develops. Plenty of people can play violent video games and be none the worse for it. Kind of like alcohol, which has terrible effects on some people and less of an effect on others. Not sure what to do about it though. :shrug:

Vic3k

10-14-2002, 02:32 AM

I suppose it is possible that the violence presented in video games is just enough to satisfy the curiosity of the masses so that they don't experiment with it in real life.

haha sorry no offence but it's very amuzing. yah sure then it's posible, if ppl were amuebas. i could only dream my whole life to have the curiousity and holding myself from stabbing my father.

brb

say-g

10-14-2002, 02:40 AM

I wouldnt be suprised if DC.sniper came from cs (he might of even used that name :O) but imo he is more likely nsa or some department either gone rogue or acting under orders, but who knows...

No matter how strong minded the individual is. If enough time is spent and enjoyed (with anything) the results of it will manifest in his or her life in some way. Whatever you spend time with is ultimately an influence in your life even if its a small influence. Thats just the mechanics of it and a part of being the influenced humans we are.

a wise jedi once said
''your focus determines your reality''

I'll ask it again, who decides what is "acceptable" and what's not?

I do :P

but on a more serious note this planet has problems, alot of them, and they cant just be solely blaimed on games/entertainment, but look at this way, when the time comes (ww3 or somthing) we would have all been so desensitised and seen enuf jet li and arnie films to know what to do :D

moral: play a game, read a book its up to you, but dont try and convert your fellow mans personal philosiphy to your own because you feel yours is greater/better, its just like organised religions... 'join our church, give us money, and we will get u into the afterlife, but if u dont join our church, give us ur money, then we !addban you from heaven'

[/rant]

ckaos@om

10-14-2002, 02:45 AM

cheers Vic3k!
i could only dream my whole life to have the curiousity and holding myself from stabbing my father.
and
I suppose it is possible that the violence presented in video games is just enough to satisfy the curiosity of the masses so that they don't experiment with it in real life.

just realised something : did any scientist conduct a research on how much violence results from our frustration with computers ??
For example : " Argh fu**** ( self sensorship) hard drive , erased 3 months worht of work !! Gotta kill my neighbour ( real or virtual) to get rid of my frustration!!)"
or " Argh, windows killed my linux partittion, , where is my shotgun?":surprised :p

Chewey

10-14-2002, 02:47 AM

quote:
I suppose it is possible that the violence presented in video games is just enough to satisfy
the curiosity of the masses so that they don't experiment with it in real life.
----------------------------------------------

Kinda like the way some use porn?(I know how could anyone imply that the average uber dork has to resort to the synthetic stuff.)

Makes you wonder how any of those mass murderers and sniper killers came up with their sick ideas before video games were invented. hmm...

googlo

10-14-2002, 02:47 AM

Yeah, I think poeple will play games to vent their anger.

I've used Freespace 2 for that :).

I think it would be extreme for someone to test the waters of real violence through a video game though.

I hate haveing to keep saying this (not to your gilgamesh), I'm not saying games should be banned, or that it makes everyone into killers!

Vic3K,

This is totaly off topic about the thread, but a black guy did kill someone for that reason. He and his friends admitted that he shot and killed another guy because he wanted to see what it was like to kill someone. He eventually was executed in prison. In an interview he said that he didn't really have anygood explaination for it beyond that. He was an honor student, I think he was 17 when he did it.

alaklij

10-14-2002, 02:52 AM

Enders Game, by Scott Card.

Excellent book written in the 1970's, I can't remeber exactly. This book depicts in a clear and profound way the dualism and internal struggle this thread has brought to light. This book has influenced my life, no better yet... it opened my eyes.

I recommend it to anyone, no matter what your opinion is; I think we can all benefit.

Another good read, Lord of the Flies. (not the movie, the book).

It's has been my life experience, so far, that humans adapt there needs and desires in respect to needs and desires of the greater whole of society.

I've notived there is a struggle between Society and Individuality (I've never gone outside of continental America, so I'm referring to continental America). I would like to point out there are many levels of governance of thought in between the two poles. For example, I'm a professor at a college, and it only takes a word, a single word, to connect with or sever someone else. This word could be any word. Between society and individuality there is collective bodies of thought, brought together at institutions. In order for these institutions to succeed we (the populace of the schools) are required, in each individual, to be tolerant, mindful, and judicious towards the greater mass of individuality.

I was just begining to create my team of people to make a game about a year ago... then the World Trade Center was destroyed. I'm still not sure what to do. Should I make a game, or not? I was so desensitized from violence through movies and games, I never realized the intensity of death and destruction within split seconds, and now it wasn't just happening on the other side of the world; it wasn't just on the news. It was happening near my home and family (literally). Some people from the Middle East and Europe thought Hollywood was pulling a stunt. (And it could have been done, but Hollywood didn't do it first). If someone asked me for resume, I wouldn't want it to say I made GTA3, but I wouldn't mind saying Baldur's Gate. Depiction of reality in a virtual world can make people very nervous... or desensitized.

googlo

10-14-2002, 02:54 AM

Makes you wonder how any of those mass murderers and sniper killers came up with their sick ideas before video games were invented. hmm...

I'm not saying that..

Vic3k

10-14-2002, 03:05 AM

ooook, googlo. well, umm, do you know another black guy that did the same out of the other 6 billion ppl? pritty explanitory and proves the point of person's preopenness to phsychological disbihaviour being envoked with not reason and have no relation to any outside brain activity's influences. there are silent pshycophaths and there are open (whatever oyu call them) ones.

he seemed like a smart person but eventually turned out to be mentally @#@$@#. genetics...what can you do about it :shrug:

KingMob

10-14-2002, 03:14 AM

ENDERS GAME WAS GREAT!

I thought it would suck, I generally dislike sci fi/fantasy unless it's really imaginative and I have to admit that book's ideas and descriptions sucked me in...I read it from cover to cover, in one sitting, with a bag of cereal and a gallon of milk...strange days.

fango

10-14-2002, 03:18 AM

thanks googlo for the reminder :)

Why are we so fascinated with graphic violence that after a week of hard work we want to shoot some bullets in virtual heads ?

i think googlo hit a point by bringing competitivness. Human beings are higly comptetitive, if we follow the Red Queen theory this comes from sexual selection : genes need to spread faster than the neighbour's. To illustrate, if two humans are running away from a lion, your genes dont need to make you run faster than the lion, just be faster than the other human.

In the ultra liberal paradigmm of today, competitivness is valued and the only way to succeed / survive. Either eliminate the competition or do better (run faster) .

As more and more markets switched to the liberal model, the violence in entertainment increased. If violent games or movies are so successful, it means individuals somehow need to express that violence.
But the entertainment industry has nothing to do with expression on the consumer part : you a re a spectator, the audience. You are passive.
Now gaming. of course this form of entertainment demands more from the audience, to actually make decisions. The gamer is still not expressing much though, he still follows the game's rules and constraints, he is not creating anything, the game ends when you hit the power button.
where we are witnessing a shift is with the new technologies allowing the user to SHAPE the game (symptomatic Matrix) "as he sees fits". Best selling game ? The sims. no goals, here are your sims, do whatever. Black and white, choose if you want to be evil or good (i don t care i m taking care of my creature.) GTA3 : you can go postal in the streets if you feel that way.
Gaming is really handing the people with no creative affinities to actively express themselves : what do you want to be today ? a sucessful capitalist, a leader of armies, a jedi kight, a hitman ? here s your role, express yourself.

We can look at the multiplayer sphere to see where violence fits. When you are playing online, you re not playing to express violence, you re playing against someone else. CStrike is less of a video game and more of a sport : scores are taken, teams play against each other. Take everquest, one of the most successful multiplayer experience out there : the game is highly competitive, who has the best gear. Then multiplayer is about performance, much like sports : what matters is winning.

in the movie industry, i think we are also witnessing a shift after 9/11. Spiderman is not a hero because he kills bad guys, it s because he saves the innocent..he doesn t even kill. Lord of the Rings is about how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, you can only save the world by destroying the nature of evil, not just the baddies. Violence is not a solution anymore, it becomes a jail from where you need to escape and sometimes fail to (Road to Perdition , requiem for a dream) .Violence is only the last resort (of the mentally crippled, as goes the quotation), much like a martial artist Choosing not to be a weapon when he can be, control.

Now in games, the audience is given more and more freedom. question is will the game industry use that huge potential to just satisfy the audience's primal need for competitiveness/violence (sports and multiplayer are satisfying the former without necessarily relying on the latter), or offer new ways for the audience to actively express what it has on its heart ?

Asorson

10-14-2002, 03:28 AM

Everyone has agression inside of them and they need healthy ways to vent that agression. People also need something to escape from all the rules that society has laid down for them. Violent entertainment, pornography, gambling, drugs. All these are activities that people enjoy doing. These activities let them relax, break the rules, and live a fantasy without worrying about what is right and wrong. Also no-one is hurt in the process (except for themselves which is none of your business). This is healthy.

I for one love violent video games. The very first game that I fell in love with was Mortal Kombat and MK2. Most of the games that I play now are PC Shooters, the more violent the better. And I will be the first to admit that it feels ****ing great to come home after a hard days work and blow the shit out of some make believe characters!

It's a lot better than beating your wife or kids, or going out to a bar and starting a fight, or climbing a clocktower and shooting innocent bystanders.

If you think that playing violent video games makes you a violent person you are an idiot. Plain and simple. Most of the people that play video games at all are some of the most non-violent and passive people on the planet! Why not go spend some time with some real violent people. Somewhere like a prison, or in the gang neighborhoods in South Central LA. Do you think those people have the slightest interest in video games?

What good can violent video games do? What good can playing a cartoony plumber and running around squishing mushroom people to dippity-doo music do? What good can playing a little yellow circle eating dots and ghosts do? What good can hitting a little white ball into a hole in the ground with a stick do?

It provides entertainment. Something that human beings need since we are such a spoiled race that we no longer have to worry about our existance. Rather we can waste all of our time trying to deny other people of their happiness, just because we don't like their tastes.

DotPainter

10-14-2002, 03:31 AM

I don't want to wax philosophical, but here are some deeper manifestations of "morality" in the social context.
Firstly, in America, from the very beginning there has been a constant struggle on the part of society to define the meaning of morality in terms of the freedoms at the heart of our society. If you go back to the Puritans, they tried to enforce a definition of morality that governed a persons every waking(and sleeping) thought, actions and inactions. This view held that a person should not even have "immoral" thoughts as that was a sure sign of you-know-who. This belief was at the core of the social system and lasted(in one form or another) way up until the 60s.

So to ask whether playing a video game make one an immoral person is almost like asking whether thinking about sex and violence or looking at images thereof is immoral. I don't think that today's society would go to that extreme definition. Most people in America today would only define immorality in terms of actions towards other people, not thoughts or imaginary acts.

Now that we have a more open society than we did in Puritan times, or even 40 years ago, for that matter, we have to look at ourselves as a society and be frank about what is wrong with it.
Does the fact that we no longer expect women to wear dresses in public mean that women are now more loose because of it? Is this the reason that families are an endangered species? Who knows? Every moral stricture that was broken down over time could be reassessed now that we no longer have them and I am sure some would say that we are not necessarily better off because of it.

Like someone else said, it boils down to a disconnect between society and the enforcement of virtues versus the individual, with the individual now being able to exercise his right to a totally inane existence devoid of any meaningful human interaction. Do I think that it makes a better society because people can do so? No, but I also don't think that we need to go back to the puritanical days either. My personal opinion is that we need to examine escapism and find out why so many want to escape the everyday world. If living in real America is so great, why do so many retreat from it in order to find happiness in the virtual world? What is that person's responsibility to himself and the group and how do we determine when such selfish indulgence becomes immoral? Why do children feel the need to go on a killing spree in high school? Isn't that a form of selfish indulgence? Isn't killing innocent people for the sake of killing a form of irresponsible self indulgence? (Boo hoo I am a bored, lonely child/adult with issues, let's make everyone else suffer...)

To me, there is a general problem when so many feel an inablility to "fit in" and be a part of something real and positive. I definitely don't think that this is what was meant by "turn on, tune in and drop out" from the sixties either. These issues are more deep than what can be discussed here and I think that the addiction to video games and other escapist pleasures are more a symptom than the problem itself. Therefore, I think that we need to look at the true issues at work in America concerning families, social values and individual responsibility and come up with a better way of defining ourselves, both as individuals and as a group in order to answer the original question of the thread....

pswitzer

10-14-2002, 03:34 AM

Uh... pardon me, but it's not the violent video games that are causing real life violence. It's the real life violence that's causing the violent video games...

Do you think the little kids going around playing cops and robbers are the ones that came up with the idea that lead to the real thing happening? It's the other way around. So it's ****ing (pardon my language) ridiculous to even suggest that these games are causing people to be violent...

Unless you're going to cram carmagedon II down a 3 year old's throat and feed him the most violent, destructive entertainment out there BEFORE reaching any point of maturity could it actually influence the child.

What is going to make someone hate another group of people? Counter-strike........ or.... modern day neo imperialism..... hrmm... gta 3..... or.....terrorists of a certain group bombing people of another (say your) group?

Hell, the people making all these stupid claims don't even know what gamers value in games (games of all sorts). If a mature person plays counter-strike, lets say, and there's sitting there shooting away at terrorists (or counter terrorists), and shouting stuff about killing either or as if they were real (not explaining this very well, but just imagine they're sitting there yelling all this stuff about "bastard terrorists, die!" or something). Do you think they picked up that attitude fromt he game or went to playing the game already with that attitude? Unless you're at a VERY young age or have some mental condition that makes you very vulnerable to being easily influenced, it's retarded to say that these games are actually CAUSING people to think a certain way.

When I'm playing I'm just trying to improve my computer gaming skills with the mouse, reacting, working as a team, getting good kills (but not thinking in terms of "kills", but rather accuracy with the mouse and coordination with the keyboard.

These are all stupid excuses for the real stuff that's going on. All the crap the media feeds us... people can't even think for themselves anymore.... It's sick. No one is informed, more like conformed.

/end rant

Gentle Fury

10-14-2002, 03:38 AM

First off, i am the most pacefistic person you will meet. If i see a fly i will shoo it away before i swat it.

That being said.........i LOVE violent video games! Why. Is it because i am a mass murderer that loves watching people get hurt? Is it that i am a sadistic rapist ready to go out and slaughter the inoccent and destroy the masses? NO, I AM A HUMAN!!!! Humans have to live in a world with LOTS of stress. There are wars. There are psychos out there shooting people at random. There is violence all around. There are morons in need of shooting down video games because they cant just realize that problems in the world are caused by people NOT games, NOT movies, NOT music!!!!!

Some days i get home from work and i am SO annoyed with how the day went. All i want to do is release some aggression that has pent up. I can turn on my computer and start up something like GTA3 or Return to Castle Wolfenstien. And VIRTUALLY blow people away. Now what is the difference between my playing a game to release some stress and my going out and actually killing people..........IM SANE!!!!! I HAVE MORALS!!!!! I RESPECT THE SANCTITY OF LIFE!!!!! Have we become so damn sensitive and PC that we now need to protect the rights of pixels and polygons?????? These are not real people! They are not real situations! Would a game about a rapist be going too far? Of course it would......why?? Because sane people dont feel the urge to go rape someone when they get off work! But can you honestly say you havent come home one day and said something like........man, i could just kill my boss. Do you really mean it when you say it??? Well, for most of us the answer is no. So, when you start censoring what people can do on games whats next? Movies of course! Then TV........Music perhaps. Hell, why not make it illegal to think impure thoughts!

Just think about it this way. I wonder what that psychotic sniper loose in the virginias favorite video game is!! Wonder if he's sitting around playing his PS2 right now in preperation to go slaughter some more people!!

Please get over yourselves ok! If you dont like something, dont watch/play/listen to it!!!!!! Freedom of speech is the freedom to speek! Not the freedom to like everything that is said!

fango

10-14-2002, 03:43 AM

uhmm i don t usually quote other people's post because you can conveniently choose for your own argumentation, but i m wondering how this type of answer :

If you think that playing violent video games makes you a violent person you are an idiot.

(not targetting on anybody here, it s just a good illustration)

is viable answer to googloo's question ?

I understand the need we all have naturally for aggression and action, but does that mean it needs to be entertained through violent criminal behaviour? There are plenty of other ways and I think that is the whole problem with this kind of thing. Why does violent criminal activity need to be exploited to satiate violence and aggression?

ckaos@om

10-14-2002, 03:44 AM

>>Patrick Switzer : right on spot, could'nt have said it better !:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Per-Anders

10-14-2002, 03:57 AM

hitler also turned around the german economy at the time. People wanted something for themselves. Hitler gave them the idea that it was the Jewish nation that was to blame for all their woes, he gave them a common enemy, and played on those who were too weak to lead themselves as he would likely put it. When people think that Hitler was evil, they're right, but they're also getting some idea into their head that people voted him in, even though they knew he was evil. Of course they didn't... they thought that in a desperate time the people would turn to any even desperate means, this was a time, when women had to wait outside the factories with wheelbarrows to run with the mens wages to the bakery in order to get a loaf before inflation took the loaf out of their reach. I've got a million m note somewhere, these were left in the gutter. I could argue that in fact the sole reason hitler got into powerf was because of people thinking only about themselves... he was the pinacle of the cult of the individual... a man who went to far down the road to individuality... he couldn't even work with his own generals... if you want an example of why the cult of the individual doesnt work... then look no further.

People will by and large try and do what they think will be best for themselves, if they've been educated enough to empathise then they're going to try to do what's right for their family/friends, those around them. That doesn't mean they're responsible. It's no guarantee that those in charge will be all that responsible, at the moment a case in point is that we have the Blue Angels practicing their manouvers over San Francisco, a highly populous area, they were given the right to do so by a mayor of San Francisco over ten years ago... that's obviously a very stupid move if anyone has seen the statistics as far as airshow/stunt flying disasters compared with standard commercial flight disasters. But still it was done by someone voted in power.

The thing that people really crave above all else in their leaders is stability. They want someone who will guarantee that today will be the same as yesterday. People want security, unfortunately we'll never trully get that, but it's an ideal. We can achieve something close to this, but only by working together. This again is a central concept of society. When people all work together it's great, the thing is you have to have someone in charge because it's a truism that too many cooks spoil the broth. If you don't have a distinct leader, all you get is chaos, in fact most of the time all you get is a lot of hot air and nothing... which is great once the rules that hold society together have been put in place (as opposed to making a whole heap of individuals who are unable to relate to each other, and due to this inability to relate will fear what they don't know i.e. everyone else, and will seek to remove the things that they fear from their lives/surrounds/environs). We have to have leaders in society because "if we try to just work together man"... nothing works.

As for the argument that it's only poeple who're unable to see that it's just a game... well, people please... i've never come accross anyone who's unable to tell the difference between reality and the game... however I've seen a lot of people get really worked up about these games when they play them. Ever noticed how someone's personality changes when they drive? Everyone's does, some more, some less. Games are like that only ten times worse... I've said it before but the people that get into games, i.e. the ones that really play those games, and get something out of it... are exactly the sort of people who should be stopped from playing games because it affects them too much. They may well know the difference between the game and reality, but that doesnt stop the game getting them worked up, it doesn't stop it dulling their senses with regards empathy towards others in the immediate time after playing the game, or extemporising on the theme of the game in their heads.

I know with my neices there's a signifigant change in them after they've been playing a game or even watching TV. It's not a case of hypocracy of oh it's fine in film or on TV so why's it wrong in games? It's wrong in those places too, but it's taken 100 years for it to get this far so it's been a long slow process, people haven't noticed quite so much, games have taken a decade to go from "Rainbow Island" throught to GTA... that's quite a harsh switch. If you're retarded enough to not be able to see the difference between the two then you really shouldnt be playing these games and should instead go and play cards with those other guys at the table, or maybe go and ask nurse for another batch of meds. If you think you're being awfully bright and clever by pointing out that something like Rainbow Island involved so much violence towards cute cartoon critters then do stop, you're actually being frightfully dumb, and proving a point that you're unable to tell the difference between the two... furher proving that in actual fact not only should you not be playing GTA, but you also shouldnt be allowed to play classic Namco games either... in fact just don't play any games on computer as they're obviously far too exciting for you and make sure the nurse doubles your prescription tonite.

There is some unfounded concept that bad evil people who do bad things are somehow stupid, dimwits.. people who'd not be able to tell the difference between a computer game and reality. This is clearly bunk. Everyone from the highly intelligent to the totally retarted is capable of perpetrating a pernicious act pursuant to their peers, although not all will be able to say it. Everyone has the capability to commit murder. As an individual we have to try and curb that capability, as a society we have to try and curb that capability and the reasoning that would allow it to be ok in each other.

Society isn't here to ban milk, because one individual who was bad liked it. It's not here to ban games because somoene bad played them. It is here to safeguard people from each other and from themselves, and it's here to try ang guide it's members into ways of thinking that are acceptable and that benifit the society as a whole. Society is about making society, making people who're fit to contribute. It's about safeguards. If those safeguards are called morals, or laws, or whatever they're here to protect and look after you. If you spend your whole time thinking that all those codes of conduct are doing is putting a crimp in your style then what the hell is it you want to do? Would you be embarrased to tell someone else that's what you want to do? Would you feel ashamed? Would you understand if they thought it was terrible? If you couldn't understand that... would you really want society to just let you anyway? What about if it were other people? Where is the line drawn... cos the person drawing the line would be you.

Within society in fact we are given a fair ammount of leaway. We're given responsibility, now do you really trust everyone else to act as responsibly as yourself? To know the difference between right and wrong innately? I don't... I think the less we show people what's acceptable behaviour the less acceptably they will behave. I only have to look on the street corners in the neighbourhood i'm living in to see that. I don't think it's acceptable to harrass passers by, to sell drugs to kids... you know what... there's a whole group of kids out there right now who's disagree. Their behaviour needs to be curbed, cos they've got no concept of society, they only know themselves.

They play a game and they can see it's just a game... but they extemporise and think... hell it's fun to go around shooting things, being destructive. Then they get a gun and they maybe shoot up some cans or an old beat up wreck, and you know what... hell it actually is fun. So when they've got no empathy for anyone else around them. When they're just about themselves and their own survival... what's the deal with that? When they're pissed off and need catharsis... Is it going to be fun? People aren't responsible. If you're so idealistic as to think that they are, or that people will respond to logic... *sigh* they wont. Just look at this board for an example, lots of arguments, no agreement.

Society has to protect it's members. What's deemed acceptable entertainment shouldn't be merely what's the biggest buzz. Sensationalism can only go so far, before things cease to be sensation. Unfortunately this is the way our entertainment industries have gone, a lot of people get entertainment other ways, people don't even realise it, but anything you enjoy doing is entertainment, but because of the big top mentality we've come to think that only watching people shoot each other, shoot up or rape each other is entertaining because everything else is blaise. Sorry if that seems a bit sick and twisted to me. Especially when you take into account the fact that our forms of entertainment are based on making people empathise a feel like they're really there... in fact the main problem with modern entertainment is that the majority of it is targeted at the id rather than the ego. This is also the main problem with modern ailing society. Society is for the ego, Individuals are for the id. What side are you on?

Asorson

10-14-2002, 04:04 AM

Besides is anyone really airing this commercial during Barney or Sesame Street? No, of course not. That would be a rediculous marketing blunder on the part of the publisher, because they would fail to reach target audience.

People that buy games like these are usually between the ages of 13-25. Not coincidentally these are the same people that are watching the television shows during which these commercials are set to air.

If you have not yet taught you child by the age of 13 the difference between video game violence and real violence, and that killing is not a cool thing to do then that is your own failure as a parent. It is not the job of society to raise your kids for you. It is not the job of society to make sure that your child is only exposed to what is "right". Why not?

Because you have to decide what is right and wrong. There are millions of people in the world and everyone thinks differently. Where as you may not want your kid playing or watching Hitman your neighbor across the street may. And no-one has the right to deny him that. You cannot stamp out whatever you think is bad, because someone else might think that something you enjoy is "wrong" and before you know it your freedoms are taken away from you as well.

You don't like violent video games? Well I don't like Barney. I think that Barney influences violence! Because god knows every time that fat purple piece of **** pops up on my television I want to strangle someone! So let's ban Barney. And while we're at it ban Teletubbies, Sesame Street, Martha Stewart, that gay interior designer on Discovery channel, all the black people on television, all the Jewish people, all the white people, all the sexual undertone laden shows on MTV, all the music videos that pertain to violence or sex or drugs, all the religions except for your own, all the books in school, lets ban the Godfather because it glorifies violence, let's ban watering you're lawn and building houses because some tree hugging hippies somewhere think it's bad for the planet, let's ban eating animals for food because some people think that is inhumane, and don't forget to ban putting the toilet paper roll on with the paper on the inside because that is the "wrong" way.

say-g

10-14-2002, 04:06 AM

f**k mdme how long did that take u to type ?

DotPainter

10-14-2002, 04:16 AM

Googlo:
Funny many talk about the morality of violent games but what about the morality of watching and enjoying two people beat each other until senseless in real life? What is the enjoyment of watching someone get hit by another person while running and thrown to the ground? Either of these can cause death or more often permanent injury. Are any of these moral?

edit: I hope you understand that I referring to boxing and football...

We as a society have for a long time created many forms of real world violent entertainment, even during times of so-called strict codes of social behavior. Remember when duels were legitimate ways to end arguments? Looking at the types of entertainment allowed in a society is not a good way to determine the morals of a culture or individual. Determining morals is a lot more complicated than that. So I can't equate playing violent video games to being immoral.

AJE

10-14-2002, 04:19 AM

(This thread should not be limited to games... films could easily be added...)

I think the biggest question from this whole thread should be how aware are the parents of those who aren't of a mature enough age to be impressioned by the activities the see/do in the gaming environment.

I believe parents are as much to blame as gaming companies. It's not the 7 - 12 year olds buying these $60-100 games, it's the parents.

A lot of times, a child will see a game that they think is 'cool' and as a general rule, I think the parents of these kids use video games as a babysitter so they can have quiet time...
Most of them however don't take an interest in what games their child is playing because they don't understand how to work the console systems (so it becomes foriegn territory, and 'unlearnable'),

or

they simply don't care, because the little hyper-active undisciplined turd of a kid is finally entranced and relatively quiet.

It's irresponsible parenting running right beside irresponsible marketing (kids magazines, during kids cartoons, etc...).

As far as the 'grown-ups' playing games where you're a 'Hitman' and the likes, well.... I don't think the games should be censored, but I do think there should be a bit more moral fibre weaved into the storylines.

Personally, I love action movies/games. They don't need to be all blood and guts, just action. What I don't like is when parents escort their kids to these kinds of movies... (not only are the annoying in the theatre, but again it demonstrates irresponsible parenting...)

anyways, that's a bit of my opinion on the matter....

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Erik Asorson
You don't like violent video games? Well I don't like Barney. I think that Barney influences violence! Because god knows every time that fat purple piece of **** pops up on my television I want to strangle someone! So let's ban Barney. And while we're at it ban Teletubbies, Sesame Street, Martha Stewart, that gay interior designer on Discovery channel, all the black people on television, all the Jewish people, all the white people, all the sexual undertone laden shows on MTV, all the music videos that pertain to violence or sex or drugs, all the religions except for your own, all the books in school, lets ban the Godfather because it glorifies violence, let's ban watering you're lawn and building houses because some tree hugging hippies somewhere think it's bad for the planet, let's ban eating animals for food because some people think that is inhumane, and don't forget to ban putting the toilet paper roll on with the paper on the inside because that is the "wrong" way.

LMFAO!

The PC movement will be the downfall of modern society, not "Hitman 2" or "Natural Born Killers."

Vic3k

10-14-2002, 04:31 AM

mdme_sadie :bowdown:

i couldn't posibly even start reading your reply after i saw how long it is, and following all the replys always written, how usually unconstracted and vague they are.

but i bow to your for that amount of typing and hope someone appreciates it. you got some nerve :thumbsup:

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by MCronin
You couldn't make a movie that featured 1000 gruesome murders in graphic deatail and expect to get anything less than an NC-17 rating, and expect to have this movie shown in theaters or on the shelf of your local blockbuster

Watch the first 10 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan."

Vic3k

10-14-2002, 04:40 AM

GRMac13 yah first 20 min were awesome. finally some kind of almost realistic representation of guts fling around when a 75mm shrapnel hits a stomich and you see all the testicles squashed on the ground for dozens of meters in all directions and then the splats of blood just pouring out of one's forehead and you can actually see the bullet making a hole in slow mo.

ah the sweet bloody comedy:drool:

Jhonus

10-14-2002, 04:41 AM

hey guys, this is real serious. i'm having trouble concentrating when reading these long posts... can we have a twenty two word limit?

Chewey

10-14-2002, 04:58 AM

I agree. You'd think that some are getting paid by the word here.

If I want history or political pov, I listen to people who specialize in that realm, not a bunch of artists types! (joke! well mostly...)

AnimBot

10-14-2002, 05:07 AM

Poor googlo everyone seems to be misinterpreting your post. Personally I do think it's odd that we are entertained so much by violence particularly in games. I remember having a conversation with a designer at work around last week. He's having a particularly hard time designing a game we are doing for a publisher of a kids title. Because this title has established characters, an established look and age range, any violence in this game is highly frowned upon. After talking to him I started thinking about other game titles we had developed and are currently developing. The vast majority is centered around some kind of violence. Almost all of it is unrealistic in nature and tame compared to others mentioned here. Still though most of them were based in disposing of opponents by attacking until terminated. I found it hard to help him come up with ideas that would be fun and were not violent and he's still struggling with it.
I don't know why some of my most cherished games contain so much violence in them. Or for that matter my favorite movies or books. I'm not even going to make an attempt to answer. I think it's more complex than anything I can propose in this post. However to answer your question, yes I do think it is strange that violent themes make up such a large percentage of our entertainment including games. I also think it's odd how 90% of the posts are off subject.

dmcgrath

10-14-2002, 05:08 AM

Alright Vic3k, you sick bastard. :thumbsup:

I think this is an exceptionally imflammatory thread.

You can take either side and weigh it against the other and they will come out even.

Violence will always be a part of human nature. Will this ultimately doom us as a species, remains to be seen.
But that doesn't mean that we should suppress it, in any fictional form. There are real boundaries between something violent, and actual violence. You must always keep this in mind.

As far as fictionl depictions of violence (ie, Hitman, CounterStrike, and Operation Desert Storm for Playstaion)
These are incredibly violent games, that put you in the "hot-seat" and blasting away at other like minded individuals. This is a world wide phenomenon, it's not localized by any means thanks to the Internet. We will never be rid of this kind of violence. If we were to ban this, we would need to ban everything else.

All violent movies
All Stephen King novels
All CSI television shows
All advertising, all of it.

I personally play CounterStrike, and frequently get my butt kicked by 7 and 8 year old kids playing against me online.
Is this wrong?
The fact that a child is beating me is wrong, but that is another issue entirely.
But will the violent content ultimately harm the child? The question is hard to answer since every person is different.

We live in a violent universe and I personally see no way of resolving this issue. I don't preach nor do I practice violence in my everday life, but who am I to say what someone else can and cannot do? Bring harm to someone, I'll try and stop you. But if you want to play a game, or read a book, or watch a TV show.

That's your business.

And as to your last question.
--------------------------
What's happening to us?
--------------------------

Nothing is happening to us, we've always been like this.
The Roman Coliseum is the best example I can give.

Gilgamesh

10-14-2002, 05:23 AM

mdme_sadie: I did read it ;)
You have some really good points to make, and you're right, I can't honestly say that there is no difference between Rainbow Island and GTA. However, I think the similarites are there. I'm not very familiar with Rainbow Island, but I'll use Road Runner as an example, I think someone mentioned it earlier.

When comparing GTA and Roadrunner, the realism is what I think is the first obvious difference. GTA is about killing people on the street, and there is blood and guts. The Coyote being blown apart or dropped off a cliff is comical and appears rather innocent, especially considering his relationship to the hero, Roadrunner (he wants to eat him). However, these violoent similarites come into focus when you consider the following.
First of all, audience- GTA is geared toward teens and adults, roadrunner targets much younger children. Older people can obviously handle more graphic violence. But it isn't even about that. From a marketing point of veiw, little kids aren't going to enjoy blood and guts because they have no context. It might be disturbing, but more than that it doesn't make sense. With Roadrunner and Coyote, the violence is taylored to fit a child's understanding. With that in mind, it is easy to see that the design, in both cases, is to deliver violence in an entertaining fasion. Little kids like goofy expressions and animation when Coyote blows up, and so when they grow up they will be ready to see blood because they already understand the nature of violence to be entertaining.

Ender's Game is my favorite book. :buttrock: :buttrock: :buttrock:

googlo

10-14-2002, 05:26 AM

Guys and gals use name references here when you are responding because right now it seems like a lot of people are saying that my stance is about the usual pc movement stuff.

I feel like some people here aren't really thinking and just reacting with the usual anti-pc stuff, which in a way, is the same problem as being pc! I say this because some people are arguing it when it's not what this thread is really about.

If you'll looke at the title that's not what it's about. I haven't said that games should be banned or that people are incapable of making the difference between reality and fantasy.

AJE,

Yeah I agree, pc games are just a segmented example of what I brought up.

There is a big difference between violence, even criminal violence that is portrayed in things like movies when it's about real life and has a point behind it even if the violence itself might be disturbing.

There is not point blowing peoples heads off or running over pedestrians, etc. in most of the voilent video games out today. And that's kind of what I'm exploring here morally. It's just there, no real purpose, no meaning.

Would people go to a movie just to see peoples arms cut off, heads crushed open, or watch people executed firing squad style, with not point behind it? And no, i'm not talking about just a some old cheesey violent movie. I literally mean just what I said. Would people go to movie theatres to sit and watch other people being executed, tortured, hunted and murdered for the sake of being entertained. I seriously doubt that. And I think people who would might have psychological problems.

I know there is an element of team play or competition in things like Unreal, HL, like strategy of survival and being tactful which is entertaining. But what happens when even that isn't the point of playing anymore? What about games like Hitmen 2 were criminal behaviour IS the goal? Or just plain brutallizing of virtual people? Of what redeeming value is there from that? And even if strategy and tact is why people play, why does it have to be through gruesome murdering?

I know football was mentioned as a violent activity that people accept. Which is true, and it is somewhate meaningless considering the damage that can occur or the mentalllity it represents, but still it's just not quite the same as games that depict this as fun:

Gilgamesh

10-14-2002, 05:29 AM

Good call, googlo.
Also, I'm getting confused between PC (politically correct) and PC (personal computer) :p

googlo

10-14-2002, 05:39 AM

I should add this point as well.

After thinking a minute about this I no longer support the idea that violent games are desired by people because of the tact and teamply in them, or the mental stimulation that comes from the strategy that some of them have because if that were the case games employing those qaulities would be just as popular as the games with all the gore and graphic killing but they are not. The most popular games today seem to be the most violent and graphic. And with each new rendition, the realism, graphic nature of the killing and how you can kill are expanded upon.

It's the gore and killing that is what entertains and makes people enthusiastic to play most of these games. If it was really about strategizing, teamplay, and tact, then why the need to tie it in with hunting, killing and just generally maiming people? Even indiscriminate killing is part of the fun, there is no strategy or tact being able to sniper pedistrian heads off or limbs and watch the body flail and spew blood. It's just pure and unadulterated violent fantasy.

After considering this, I have to concede that it IS the graphic violence in the game that draws people into wanting to play it.

But even if people don't agree. Why does the need for competition and aggression within us have to be satisfied in anti-social and criminal ways? Why does it have to be through such negative fantasy?

nez

10-14-2002, 06:06 AM

games are brutal..live still more

Gilgamesh

10-14-2002, 06:11 AM

googlo: That's another excellent point.

I'm won't deny that the violence is appealing in games like counterstrike, but I don't think that is all it boils down to. Otherwise, like someone said, there would be video games with nothing other than violence (no plot, characters, so on).
So with counterstrike: there are many different ways you can kill someone. There are many different guns, or you can use a grenade, or even a knife. Beyond that you can fire suppressively, or you can take your time and aim for a head shot. At first glance this all seems like "expanding the ways you can kill someone." However, tactically, every detail about the weapons and killing methods come into play. If you aren't a very good aim, you might fancy a shotgun over a sniper rifle. Or you may choose the shotgun because your teamate has a sniper rifle. If you are a good aim, you will probably shoot for the head, because it only takes one bullet to get the kill. Don't read too much into the graphic nomenclature, either. The point isn't that you are actually "killing" someone, but rather scoring a point for your team. If you get a head shot, you aren't being more disturbed, you're being more effective.
One of the most embarassing things in counterstrike is to be killed with a knife. If you think about why, it has nothing to do with getting stabbed. It's because you weren't a good enough player to take the guy down before he got close enough to use his knife. Tactics have a lot to do with it.

pswitzer

10-14-2002, 06:13 AM

"Personally I do think it's odd that we are entertained so much by violence particularly in games"

I'm not entertained when I shoot someone’s head off in a video game and blood squirts out. I might appreciate the graphical effects that went into doing it, but I'm hardly sitting there thinking, "man, isn't blowing people up fun! I should try this out for real some time!"

Again, unless you're 5 years old, totally immature, haven't gone through puberty or have some mentally impairing disorder that makes you an easy target to being influenced, how on EARTH can poking at a keyboard & mouse and seeing 64x64 pools of fairly unrealistic (realistic compared to doom II back in the day, but get real, there's nothing convincing out there) blood bring within me an incredible urge to hurt someone or erupt some violence?

There's a difference between video games causing violence and desensitizing to violence. And to be honest, I doubt there are many mature people (that weren't abused as a child or influenced at a very young age) out there that are truly desensitized to it. I cringe every time I see it. I've been exposed to real life violence for my whole life because of the media (as well as my own personal experiences). I can't say because I've never experienced war, but my mind thinks that if you were exposed to REAL life violence all the time, again and again and again, at THAT point you might become desensitized. Not some 15-year-old playing video games.

Young people say a lot of stuff that you'd think implies this harsh desensitization to violence. They'll often joke about it or laugh at it in movies and games. Would they laugh if they saw somebody get shot in the head in front of their eyes? "Yeah! Because they saw that so much in their video games!" Give me a break...

And actually... Just to shift slightly to the other side, the games I've been playing and a lot of the new shooters don't even have that much blood. Like Battlefield 1942. It's a game all about war! I don't recall seeing any kind of blood in the game, ever (correct me if I'm wrong).

It's when you get to playing games like Quake that the bloody gore comes up. I don't play those games, they're too mindless. All it does for me is give me some outrageous score like 40430:500 and strained fingers.

Those games are so far from reality and looking realistic that I just can't picture what exactly it would cause someone to do if anything? Jump around like an idiot and maybe try to do one of those stupid rocket jumps off their trampoline?

Um.... I forget what point I was making so I'll stop there. Whatever :cool:

fango

10-14-2002, 06:15 AM

Why does the need for competition and aggression within us have to be satisfied in anti-social and criminal ways? Why does it have to be through such negative fantasy?

googlo, i m going to try to answer that question in a philosophical matter, take it as such and not as an explanation per se.

Ok, supposingly what makes us human is our ability to indentify ourselves, to look at a mirror and see myself, even though it s only photons bouncing back. I can look at a circle with two dots and see a face.
We can see ourselves outside our own entity, this is empathy.

Means i also can relate to someone else's suffering. Because of empathy, as a human being i will not cause harm to another because this man could be me.

So IDEALLY, empathy prevents us from causing harm to other human beings. Since we are not in Plato's world of ideas, society enforces empathy upon us with laws : If you harm this man , this will happen to you. Laws forces me to consider the consequences of my action, to relate outside my own individual.

Now from there, you can see that laws and society could be an imperfect empathy.

Now when you take games, I know (I being the philosophical I in this post ) that the characters i see are not humans. I can choose the level of empathy i want to infuse into a ball with two dots : this will be me in this game. The enemies the game puts on my way, even if they look human and are depicted as such, have no humanity because me as a player DO NOT choose to relate to them.
so when i m killing an NPC in game, i can fully enjoy his brains splattering the wall because i as a player choose if he s human or not , and in this case, he is just a threat, an element of gameplay.
On the other hand, if my main character is hurt or is being tortured (or his family is muderered etc) I as a player can be drawn into the storyline because i infused the main character with humanity, i relate with the main character.

now if we take society as being an imperfect empathy, it is no wonder that games can be successful by putting the player outside the law : because as a gamer i can choose who i will feel for, i have perfect empathy in this little simulation of a world, i do not need laws anymore, why not play an outlaw.

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by googlo
What about games like Hitmen 2 were criminal behaviour IS the goal? Or just plain brutallizing of virtual people? Of what redeeming value is there from that? And even if strategy and tact is why people play, why does it have to be through gruesome murdering?

I don't understand why something has to "have a point" to be entertaining. What's the point of watching nine men try to stop one man from running around a bunch of squares after hitting a little round ball with a stick? What's the point of swinging on a tire suspended from a tree limb by a rope? What's the point of strapping yourself into a seat and being whipped around a track for 3 minutes? The point is self-enjoyment. Looking at it from the outside it does seem sort of ridiculous. Just like you said violent games look ridiculous from an outside perspective, so do many other forms of entertainment. Just because you find something offensive about the way someone decides to entertain themselves, does that make it wrong? Are they hurting you or anyone else in the process? Probably not, so why not just live and let live?

What redeeming value does porn have other than to satisfy the sexual urges of horny men? What redeeming value does alcohol have other than to help people "loosen up" or get their minds off of their sorrows for a couple of hours? What redeeming value is there in Hollywood action flicks or Hong Kong Kung-Fu movies? My point is that human beings have a need to enjoy themselves. Some people choose to do it by going to their local bar, others choose to frequent the red-light district, still others enjoy checking out the latest Bruckheimer flick. And yes, many enjoy playing video games. You may find that these people's ideas of fun are very different from your own, but so what? Different strokes for different folks. It makes the world go 'round. No harm, no foul, right?

If some guy feels like he needs a couple hours on GTA3 to get his kicks, why should that bother you? Most people that play these games are not some demonic blood-thirsty killers, they are average people leading average lives.

Violence in entertainment is not a new phenomenon. It's been a mainstay in human civilization for thousands of years, and it will continue to be. It's in our genes. Call it competition, survival of the fittest, or just plain morbid curiousity. Whatever you call it, it's not going to go away, and you're probably not going to figure out why it exsists in the first place. People need to accept the fact that deep down inside they are animals with the sam primitive instincts apparent in all of God's creatures. Fortunately we have an advantage over most animals in that we have a conscience and can learn from our mistakes and more importantly from others' mistakes. We can see and understand how destructive violence can be, so we learn to control our urges. When somebody cuts you off on the road, you don't smash into them. When you're boss calls you an idiot, you refrain from busting him dead in his snot-box. But the thoughts are there.

I defy anyone on these forums to say that they have never felt the urge to physically harm another human being. If you do, you're a big fat liar. It's a natural reaction, the "fight or flight" thing. Most of us control these urges quite well. However, the first step in being able to control these primitive instincts is be aware that they exsist in the first place. Alot of people like to indulge in these urges in some way. Some put on the gloves and hit the heavy bag, some play a game of football or hockey, others go to the paintball range, still others pop in Counterstrike or GTA. It's healthy to express these feelings in certain ways, as long as you are not really hurting anyone. The same goes for sex. If you're not getting laid on a regular basis, you're going to resort to whacking off. So you look at Playboy or Penthouse or Yellow Discipline Daily.

Point is, there is no redeeming value in any of this other than to satisify those primitive urges. But you can't condemn anyone for doing any of this, because we all do it in our own way. Some may be more extreme than others, but that's a personal choice. To supress people from expressing themselves through these venues is useless. If it's not videogames, it'll be boxing or target practice in the backyard. Personally, I for one am thankful that we have so many safe outlets for these vices because if we didn't, we'd have a world of very frustrated indivuals running around.

Agent D

10-14-2002, 06:33 AM

I can't really read the whole thread or write much, because it's late and I have school tomorrow, but I just wanted to say that there's a big difference between a game centered on an amoral person who's good at his job (which happens to be a proffessional assassin) and the games you're talking about that are just mindless violence. Some games have crossed that line, but you've probably never heard of them because they were just stupid and weren't popular or fun to play. I'm not going to play a game where you kill innocent people for no reason. I just don't find that interesting or fun. People will make their own decisions on whether a game has crossed that line, like many of the examples you gave, and they won't play it.
On Violence:
Everything contains violence, and violence alone does not determine how moral or wrong a game is, but rather the thought and substance put into it. For example, in Hitman 2 you use tactics and cunning to outwit, outsneak, outgun etc. your enemies, while working towards a target goal. It looks fun. Morals aren't part of it really. It's a much less meditative, but much more immersive evolution of chess. Is it RIGHT to capture those pawns and murder the King of the opposing army? ;)

Games are for entertainment. They immerse you in an environment that constantly challenges you and engages your interest. The most basic instinct is self preservation, thus death is one way or another the center of almost every game created. Even if there's no blood, and little glowing stars shoot out when you jump on the evil turtles, you still defeated them, and they are most certainly dead. That crazy plumber must have killed hundreds of thousands of cute pixely animals and people! :p Realistic violence simply adds to the immersiveness and realism of the game, increasing the entertainment value. Besides, none of it is real. So no, Hitman 2 is not too "immoral" for me to find entertainment in.

Sorry for rambling a bit, but I need sleep.

studiomiguel

10-14-2002, 06:33 AM

What a GREAT thread. Very popular.

'The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.'
1 John 5:19

It shouldn't surprise anyone that we are in the state we are in. I don't like how these kinds of games affect our society. But the only person we can control is ourselves.

That is your part. If you find these games abhorent. Don't play them. Don't work on them.

That simple. The rest has to be trusted to the ruler of the universe. He will work things out in his own time (Psalms 37: 9, 11, 29).

My 2cents.

m

erilaz

10-14-2002, 06:47 AM

I'm not going to add too much here, because a lot has already been said. I'm not going to state my opinion of violence in games, rather share a line of thought.

I think violence in games comes as a release from reality. We are, by instinct, violent little monkeys that have concious moral thought, therefore we (well, most of us) restrain our violent tendancies, as we know it is not right.

However, playing a game involving violence may release tension and be fun purely because we cannot (or should not) do so in real life. Our intinctual behaviour can take a bit of a romp, and it seems to satisfy. A game like Hitman allows us to be someone we are not (unless you are a hitman...), which is a form of escapism. The excitment produced from such a game is similar to that which is felt in any game. Why this is, I'm not going to try and speculate, because I would need a degree in anthropology, social psychology and genetics to fully give adequete reasoning. It is only an unhinged person that strongly relates fantasy to reality, and tries to insert that fantasy INTO reality.

Now, over the top volence is another matter entirely. This is usually either funny or really disturbing. Why is it funny? Because our brain can't cope with it, so it laughs.
Games like Grand Theft Auto where you can smash up pedestrians with baseball bats is funny. The idea of actually doing such a thing is absurd, so the brain says "What a crack up. You must be kidding me." Therefore, we are entertained.

Just a thought. A good or bad thing? Who can say?

And hey, chess is just a really, really dummied-down version of full scale war.
:D

googlo

10-14-2002, 06:48 AM

Just so people know, I like games like Unreal, the last first person shooter I bought was Voyager: Elite Force. I'm more into space simulator and strategy type of games like Star Trek: Armada, or Klingon Academy, WarcraftIII. So I like violent games too. But I do think there is something to say about how we accept so much violence in things today when within the last century men and women who had healthy outletss for their aggression would gasp and even be appalled at what we don't even bat an eye at, even laught about.

Regardless of whether we can adjust normally with it, something has been lost or breeched. A certain amount of civility I would say.

My brothers and I have had a lot of bonding time playing together online as teams or against one another in games like Unreal tournament, Quake III, Diablo II, etc, (i know that sounds cheesey but it's true). And we do actually like the sport of hide/flee, get/run and "what can I use to survive or beat the odds" type of stuff and laughed at getting tagged (killed) but didnt' take it seriously like "now I want to kill for real".

So I want everyone to understand I get that part. But what I've put forth before still stands.

I love computer games, but it just seems that it's unnecessary and even unethitical in the manner that the envelope is being pushed in some ways.

It's really weird how some people take it as if I'm saying that pc games should be banned or censored, or that I'm saying it makes kids killers..

I've really liked how this thread has evolved though. The dialogue has been really good :).

Vic3k

10-14-2002, 06:51 AM

plz someone save me from this horrible, thoughtless, pseudo-Unphylosophical argument about harm coming from the monitors or any media.
xcuse me. i'm originally from russia, i was 13 when i started smoking and drinking and hanging out with ppl that were rubbing stealing and so on.... well somehow for 2 years i didn't become them and wasn't robbing cars and homes like some of my friends did. then i came here and been watching all your (what you call violence) for 5 years. with games, movies and other media stuff. somehow i never even thought about something as stupid as blaming media would come up some day and make me LOL big time like this thread. and it all started about a year ago from some guy who died coz that idiot been playing for 90 hours. well to bad for him and maybe world better off without him.

only kids or absolutry stupidly idiotic ppl would ever think what you assume they think and do what you assume they might do.

stop harrasing gaming industry and crowl back to your holes. where a fly might not actually bite you and you wouldn't have to whine about it. there is no excuse for stupidity coz normal ppl are always in control of themselves.

my xsi force is fading now, time to get some sleep before i really shoot someone here :wavey:

googlo

10-14-2002, 07:02 AM

except Vic's last comment... If you think it's pointless why bother wasting your time responding? This discussion isn't rediculous and it's not even about what you are complaining. Don't make me mod your ass. Ok, I can't becuase I'm not a moderator :p

erilaz

10-14-2002, 07:18 AM

This thread does evolve, doesn't it? There seems to be five factions:
- People who cry out that violence in games is wrong
- People who cry out that violence in games is right
- People who speculate the morality but enjoy it none-the-less
- People who don't care
- and flamers.

Whee! The cycle of life.:D

The main problem with an issue like this is people jump down other people's throats before really considering what that person has said.

Like the great MP lot said:
"I came here for a good arguement!"
"Ah, no you didn't. You came here for an arguement."

Continue, please. This is most interesting. (I'm not being sarcastic).

tascitus

10-14-2002, 07:24 AM

i think what it comes down to is influence. various forms of entertainment can and do persuade some people to take actions they may not have taken otherwise. now the question is, do 99.9% of us make laws and change our habbits becuase of the .01% that can be pushed into a wrong action do? i would say no, but i dont live in virginia.

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by tascitus
do 99.9% of us make laws and change our habbits becuase of the .01% that can be pushed into a wrong action do? i would say no, but i dont live in virginia.

Don't you think the logical thing to do is wait until they at least catch the guy before assuming that some "form of entertainment" persuaded him to do what he did? If I were living in Virgina I'd be demanding better gun control laws, not censorship.

Taz

10-14-2002, 07:40 AM

There are two pritty interesting things about this topic....

Developers are going to have an interesting time from now and into the future with all the media attension going around about computer violence which will be fueled by the current technology enabling life like visuals running in real time. Im saying this cause the have two options

a: Make a fun game to play and not rely/have blood, buts, sexual ref, ect. This will keep the nagging society at bey.

or

B: Make a over the top game with blood, guts, ect. and continue to have such media articles as this one and games being banned in some countries.

Which brings in the other interesting thing.
If game companys choose to make games that are in the option 'A' catagory then they will loose alot of money. I beleive this cause if we look at nintendo atm its constantly getting bashed by the gaming community cause its aparently a Kids console.

Game companys are never going to stop making games that are contraversal so i dont see a end to this any time soon. The only option that i can think of is having some sort of card that must be shown on the purchase of games, but still with that you'll always get thoes shady places that will see games to anyone.

tascitus

10-14-2002, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by GRMac13
Don't you think the logical thing to do is wait until they at least catch the guy before assuming that some "form of entertainment" persuaded him to do what he did? If I were living in Virgina I'd be demanding better gun control laws, not censorship.

i never said the sniper had anything to do with games, nor did i call for censorship. my point is , do you take something away from the masses because of the chance that it can be abused? i answered no.
as far as violent content in games goes, let the parents decide. they can even say no, you cant play that game timmy. ;)

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by tascitus
i never said the sniper had anything to do with games, nor did i call for censorship. my point is , do you take something away from the masses because of the chance that it can be abused? i answered no.

You answered no, but you assumed that the guy plays violent games in first place, or that folks in Virgina assume he does? I don't get the comparison of the Virginia sniper to the topic at hand. He's irrelevant to this discussion, at least until he's caught and we learn his motivation.

AJE

10-14-2002, 07:48 AM

dmcgrath

As far as fictionl depictions of violence (ie, Hitman, CounterStrike, and Operation Desert Storm for Playstaion)

You are aware that Desert Storm was a REAL conflict right?

About 36 dead Americans and a kazillion Iraqis seem to think it was.

derelict

10-14-2002, 07:49 AM

kazillion

is that a word?

i play atari

10-14-2002, 07:53 AM

:buttrock: :buttrock: :buttrock: :buttrock: :buttrock: :buttrock:

It's pretty funny. When somebody reads a book and goes balistic, nobody really thinks twice about it..."shit, a whole of other people be readin' dat dem book der, and they ain't be killin' nothing, so I guess it's not 'Mein Comf' that's putting idears in der head, it's that damn Mario and dat water gun on his back."
Just think about it, books do that same thing, infact I think they're worse. If you're playing a game, you kill someone, you see a low polygon character with a flesh colored block sitting next to them, representing their arm that you just shot off. I don't know about you, but that hasn't looked realistic to me yet, well maybe because I'm not on Crystal-Meth. Now, on the other hand:

"Jack chased him into the room, he had no where to go. He thought it was funny that Robert was in the corner squealing like a swine. If Robert knew what Jack was about to do he would probably pass out. Jack approached him and inserted his knife into his side, Robert screamed in agony asking him to stop, but he wouldn't. He began to move the knife along his stomach with a motion that wasn't all that unlike sawing. Robert still screamed. When Jack got to the other side of his body Robert was enstilled in shock, sweat poured down his pale lifeless face, he could tell he was losing him. With one quick tug, Jack removed Roberts intestines and let them lay there on the floor in a puddle of blood. They looked like worms, squirming and covered in goo, Jack had never witnessed something this hideous before. But he liked it. He could've been saved though, if only congress had removed Doom, the ultra realistic demon killer-sim, from the shelves, this could have been avoided."

Not saying that all books are like that, but I felt more disturbed writing that than I did when I was playing Hitman 2. It all factors down to this, if you kill someone because you played a violent video game, than it's not the video game, it's you. YOU ARE A CRAZY MOTHER F****R! Don't blame it on a video game, movie, book, bad bowling score, poster ad, or anything!! You do what you want to do, and only you can change that! Now if you'll excuse me, I need rip open my neighbors chest, because my strategy guide said that the secret star is in there.

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by AJE
You are aware that Desert Storm was a REAL conflict right?

Conflict? I believe the correct term is "Swift Ass-Whoopin."

tascitus

10-14-2002, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by GRMac13
You answered no, but you assumed that the guy plays violent games in first place, or that folks in Virgina assume he does? I don't get the comparison of the Virginia sniper to the topic at hand. He's irrelevant to this discussion, at least until he's caught and we learn his motivation.

the sniper has come up because there have been news stories where people are trying to link this guy to gaming. i saw a piece on the today show where they had pics of counterstrike and hitman etc. where they were saying that these games are excellent trainers. i will assume when hes captured if theres a single "violent" video game in his possesion there will be an attempt made to limit games in some way, and the people who have been effected by this guy will most likely be shouting the loudest.

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 08:02 AM

Bah. Most intelligent folks will recognize that as nothing more than media sensationalism. It's getting tired. I wonder what the news media did when they had to explain the Manson murders? Oh yea, they blamed it on the fact that Manson was influenced by Helter Skelter by the Beatles.

MAXIMISE

10-14-2002, 08:07 AM

I am sorry if the point I am about to make has been mentioned already, but there is one strong fact that people and especially the media love to ignore... Crime on all fronts is DOWN in nearly every western country. Murders have decreased yet the reporting of murder has increased, Rape has severly declined in both my country (Australia) and the US and UK. It is only sensationised media campaigns to subjegate there viewers to FEAR, for ratings. Which has made people think that all crime and violence is on the rise. Only the reporting of crime has increased, so much so, that murders that would have once been swept under the rug of the Law have found there way to the local news.

While the news media looks for FEAR MONGERING stories, on a slow news day they will always turn to either blaming Games, or blaming a Movie/Song for something. The ratings always go up when anxious parents can watch and worry that there childs recreation is going to make them a mass murderer.

Anyone with any sense sees what is right and what is wrong, its the people who don't have that facility who are affected in negative ways by violence in the media. Since they make up probably less then 1% of the entire worlds populace, its unfair to criticise anyone's potentially amoral past time... If we had a humanist motto of 'live and let live', and 'do what you want as long as nobody gets hurt' we would be better for it.

I should also point out that if we are to ban violence in games then we have to also look at banning all contact sports. There is actually more viloent behaviour exhibited in sportspersons then an average kid playing a computer game. Sure digital games do increase the aggression level, but have any of you been playing a good game of football/hockey/basketball/etc and not had the exact same reaction to a bad play or opposing team member. You'd be a damn fool if you said that it doesn't happen in sport, and a liar if you said you never felt almost exactly the same way playing competitive Computer Games as you did playing competitive sport.
The only difference was the theme... Counter Strike or Hitman2 just happens to use weapons and fake violent imagery, a Sport places you in contact with your opponent, and within yelling (mostly abusive) distance.

Humans are violent by nature, not by intent.

AJE

10-14-2002, 08:19 AM

erilaz:
And hey, chess is just a really, really dummied-down version of full scale war.

I've never killed anyone playing chess...

derelict:
kazillion = literary licence

tascitus:
i saw a piece on the today show where they had pics of counterstrike and hitman etc. where they were saying that these games are excellent trainers.

Truth is that they are excellent trainers. It is a well documented fact that new military recruits have been getting progressively stronger on their mental, dextrous, and emotional stress tests. The change is attributed to video games and the fact that the military sims are simply hopped up versions of the stuff the kids are used to playing at home.

MAXIMISE

10-14-2002, 08:34 AM

Computer games do train hand-eye co-ordination, its a fact, but it doesn't train the body or mentality. To be a truely successful soldier/killer, you need to be physically able to carry weapons, fire them and account for real world situations. Games can NOT, train people to be better soldiers, just better at aiming and maybe being quicker of mind.

No offense to gamers, but while they may think they are L33t shooters, they would never be able to just walk into battle after being an elite counter strike player. Most gamers I know can't do anything well that is the real world equivilant of the games they play.

In recent studies by both the Airforce and ADF (Australian Defence Force) they have shown that in a computer simulation of Warfare a solely Computer based gamer will most often beat a truely trained warrior, because they play be the 'non physical' rules. Where say, a player can dive off a 3 story building and survive to pick up that all important health pack, while the real soldier, will NOT jump off the 3 story building because realistically thats suicide and counter-survival. But Soldiers tend to win more in team play, as they use each other in the correct formations and communicate better. The solely Computer based combatant is largely out for themselves.

Equating Gamers to future assasins and mass murderers because of gamings hand-eye benifits is damn funny to anyone who has trained to fight for real. And I challenge any L33t gamer who thinks they have the goods to take even a 'reserver' in combat to give it a try. :D

Per-Anders

10-14-2002, 08:55 AM

the local news in the uk is very local. i no longer live there, but i think that a murder would not have gone un-noticed, and swept under the rug of the law. while reported crime may be up, usually that's an indication of the overall crime levels. usually according to crs reported crime is about 1/4 of actual criminal activity. though it's arguable that reported crime is a far lower ratio 1 in ten cases for instance. moreover reported crime is not just crime that is reported but crime that is recorded. when the levels of reported crime rise it's a pretty good indication that there is in fact a lot more of the criminal acts that get reported being perputrated, those being neither white nor blue collar but far more often street and juvenile delinquency related criminal acts, if merely because these are visible. so long as england continues it's softly softly approach it is my oppinion that the crime levels will continue to rise and in fact the possibility of reversing the trend with traditional methods becomes less and less viable. hence further acceptance makes itself appear in fact the only possible route, this is known somewhat innacurately as "progressive".

while it's arguable that reporting of crime can go up as people become more secure in the idea that the felon will get caught and that essentially something will get done about it, within the three western societies cited actual regard for the police and their effectiveness has been in a steady decline over the past 50 years, this trend has increased somewhat in recent times too, although in certain areas of america the police have since 911 had been seen to be more on the side of the people though that trend doesn't look set to last.

there's also been an alarming increase in the levels of gun crime within the uk, this going against the overall trend in the US where gun crime has been decreasing within certain groups. surprisingly enough the areas of high gun crime are in fact the areas where the softly softly approach has been put in effect, you would be hard put to imagine that this is due to the police now having enough free time to tackle these other crimes that were so easy to missed (such as somoene being shot at) by pc plod spending his time chasing down students having a spliff.

street and juvenille crime levels are up. the methods used to massage the statistics in the uk by the home office are in fact highly dubious and upon closer inspection can only lead a person to believe that now more than ever the police far from pushing things under the rug are merely turning a blind eye.

AJE

10-14-2002, 08:58 AM

Equating Gamers to future assasins and mass murderers because of gamings hand-eye benifits is damn funny to anyone who has trained to fight for real.

I am ex-militia.

Not neccessarily 'assasins and mass murderers' runnning wild in society, but what do you think the military is?

The psychological(mental) aspect I was referring to comes from seeing blood after your virtual kill, and the lack of value placed on life in games. It's a numbness towards death and violent imagery.

While your points on 'jumping 3 stories' is valid, it doesn't negate the fact that gamers as new recriuts are coming in with better dexterity, are often quicker to kill with less remorse, have a stronger understanding of warfare strategy, will take bigger personal risks, etc...

I got into 3D after my military stint, and frankly, I find first person shooters boring as hell.

jonaz.dk

10-14-2002, 08:58 AM

hehe.. amazing to see how Hitman 2 can spark up a debate..

Congrats to IOI.. :thumbsup:

arvid

10-14-2002, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by bentllama
An interesting aside is that they are making a game that pits the player in the role of Jeebus Christ himself.

I wonder how a player playing as Jeebus will make the sinners repent?

Maybe we atheists can complain about a demoralizing game now! :)

[all this game content babble is silly...play or be played...]

haha!! word! :beer: Is this for real though :surprised

(ps. Jeebus.. haha that episode cracks me up! mmm poisonous toad)

red_oddity

10-14-2002, 09:07 AM

'Kay, here's my humble opinion...

I might say things that have already be said on this post, but i'm gonna be buggered to read all 9 pages of this shouting match as whom to blame for violence....

Yesterday i bought the game, i played it, i liked it, the feel was good, levels looked amazing, and it was anything BUT realistic...

As for nudity in this game...hmmm...well..somewhere in the last dojo (Japan missions) you meet a woman...and she's wearing...OH MY GOD...a dress, yes, a dress, as far as nudity goes, the only skin i saw in the game so far was her cleavage.

As for violence...yes, you play a hitman..that's about it...but the game isn't about the killing, it's about doing it silently and if anywhere possible, without killing anyone else but your target.

I think that the violence part of this game has been blown up by the media, if you want to see a violent game go buy Soldier of Fortune 2 (now this was a game i couldn't play because it was...well, a bit too realistic in the part that a game doesn't really need (like shoot someone in the face with a shotgun and get a look at what an action like that whould make of someones face....hmmm...thank you, but no thanks....))

Now i'm a big shooter fan and all this gore and exit wound crap isn't really nescercary for me (give me better AI and i'm happy, if it plays well, hey, i'll maybe buy it)
I love the Unreal series (why? not because it's violent, because it's as Unrealistic as anything can get and above all, it's fun, it's ENTERTAINMENT!)

I loke the Quake series, not because it's realisticly violent, but because once again, it's fun to play (i like the whole Gothic themed level design (even the diarrea colors throughout the whole series (a Quake trademark IMO)))

I like Hitman for the same reasons i like the Thief series...you get to sneak around (heck you even get awarded extra points for killing as little people as possible)...

The games you play are made violent by the way you play them, if you don't like them, don't buy them and don't play them...no need in discussing a topic that has been discussed a thousend times over and over again (especially by people who critisize a game and not even having played it)

Jhonus

10-14-2002, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by googlo
After thinking a minute about this I no longer support the idea that violent games are desired by people because of the tact and teamply in them, or the mental stimulation that comes from the strategy that some of them have because if that were the case games employing those qaulities would be just as popular as the games with all the gore and graphic killing but they are not. The most popular games today seem to be the most violent and graphic. And with each new rendition, the realism, graphic nature of the killing and how you can kill are expanded upon.

It's the gore and killing that is what entertains and makes people enthusiastic to play most of these games. If it was really about strategizing, teamplay, and tact, then why the need to tie it in with hunting, killing and just generally maiming people? Even indiscriminate killing is part of the fun, there is no strategy or tact being able to sniper pedistrian heads off or limbs and watch the body flail and spew blood. It's just pure and unadulterated violent fantasy.

I violently disagree. (yes Krugar, very amusing.)

I played Quake1 single player for about two weeks. I played Quake1 multiplayer for about 6months. Difference is teamplay. Conflict offers an entertaining scenario for games. Paintball is an excellent real life example and as someone else mentioned, chess.

Honestly, the violence is nothing. Once you've seen all the death cycles its old news. Theres only so many times you can sniper pedestrian heads off before it becomes boring... then all your left with is the game.

The crux of the matter is that the ultimate disinsentive for failing is death. So unless you make a game where you die from natural causes everytime you fail then your going to need violent deaths.

Now you must provide me with some multiplayer scenarios that don't involve conflict, violence or implied violence and are fun.

And just to add to my disjointed comments: What makes games fun is the distraction from reality.

Per-Anders

10-14-2002, 09:43 AM

you're desensitised towards death and gore... or at least the deaths of others is what you're saying right? and this is a good thing?!? even taking it simply as "once you've seen one you've seen them all" then what's the point of keeping them in there? Why bother with a plot at all? Why bother with attempting to get you to empathise or feel for your hero or victims... surely it would then be better if your victims were just robots that exploded in funky new ways (surely there's more scope for a wow factor doing this than finding ways to make the blood more gruesome and the instestines more real?).

MAXIMISE

10-14-2002, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by AJE
I am ex-militia.

Not neccessarily 'assasins and mass murderers' runnning wild in society, but what do you think the military is?

I think you may have confused the point I made, I am saying that people who are supposedly 'trained' by games will never become an effective combatant, and I use the term 'Assasins and mass murderers' because that is the terms of the media in realtion to the fear mongering of the information they present. ie that those 'trained' by Computer games will become killers of innocent people.

The psychological(mental) aspect I was referring to comes from seeing blood after your virtual kill, and the lack of value placed on life in games. It's a numbness towards death and violent imagery.

While your points on 'jumping 3 stories' is valid, it doesn't negate the fact that gamers as new recriuts are coming in with better dexterity, are often quicker to kill with less remorse, have a stronger understanding of warfare strategy, will take bigger personal risks, etc...

Desensitivity is a point I agree with. Hence why I make no comment to that effect. BUT, lets recall past history. in the last hundred or so years, life for the most part has been isolted and cushioned from crime and atrocity. Whereas throughout history, facing death and a gruesome demise was part of life. I wonder wheather we are better off being ignorant to violence or confronted with it. Because isn't knowing it, the first step to avoiding it. What I believe should occur is more exploration of the consequences involved in Warfare and even in Mock combat.

I got into 3D after my military stint, and frankly, I find first person shooters boring as hell.

Exactly because we who have been trained, no that there is more to it then scores and glory. And we also know that real life combat makes games pale in comparison.

---------------

mdme_sadie

The most recent Statistics I have heard lately are that in the US, crime (murders/brutal crime) has been going down consistantly by 20% per year for a long time. However the reporting of those types of crimes have gone up 600%. ie because thats what sells papers and commercial time.

The fact is the media has been the first to sensationise every murder that they hear about. Once upon a time there could be 12 murders that day but only the ones involving Politics, Celebrity or public safety (serial killers and gangs) would have been reported. Now, the news will report that one brother shot another brother over an arguement. It gets out of hand when the report has nothing to do with anyone but the police and the immediately involved people.

MDB101

10-14-2002, 11:08 AM

Everything balances out in the world. Dreams and creativity are amung us all, we are all animales, beast or angel we fit as to one.

I see a lot of violence in this world and its every where to families to world war.

How can we judge the realality towards a pixel of light to what we see in real life, and the smell of fear of death. I can see the differance here. One is light, an image on your screen that shows you what the ugly world is all about. plus the stories we never hear, just the ones that attack the majour industy, creativity.
If you have not read the real news what goes on in our violent planet, read these! www.unseennews.com Think this light pixle is our main source of violence? not really. Its the Human nature that causes this all. The other source is greed. (money). Imagin the world truly free from greed. a wolrd without money... I would like to see a world were we all can just live for free, gather Human imagination thus not limiting our knowlege, to Explore our galaxy, to create new cures for our present sickness. Greed of money prevents us to gain faster knowlege. like this Lemon Juice is a cure for aids, yet there is another ingreadiant to that..but the GOV knows this. They wont tell us.. they want our money though fundraisers to the donations though the taxes.. BAH this world has too much greed.. in fact I think its the Money that casues this all nonsence of violents. we need to change our belifes in survial and keep away from the green paper with writing we all count on to live.

Dominique

10-14-2002, 11:17 AM

Who's talking about freedom, if you can't smoke a cigarette on street!!!
( toons can't even smoke one anymore, poor society, next is coffee)
But Anyone can buy a gun, can play the most violent games, big people even play real war,
Absurd and decadent...

Dominique

10-14-2002, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by erilaz

And hey, chess is just a really, really dummied-down version of full scale war.
:D [/B]

Ever been in bombarded trenches my lill' boy??

Jhonus

10-14-2002, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
you're desensitised towards death and gore... or at least the deaths of others is what you're saying right? and this is a good thing?!? even taking it simply as "once you've seen one you've seen them all" then what's the point of keeping them in there? Why bother with a plot at all?

Well I wasn't that sensitive to it in the first place. When I see Rambo mow down a couple of hundred people I don't feel a special pain for each one. If I had some sort of emotional connection to every single person/character then things might change. Problem being that computer games are pretty crap at making you care about a character.

Why bother with attempting to get you to empathise or feel for your hero or victims... surely it would then be better if your victims were just robots that exploded in funky new ways (surely there's more scope for a wow factor doing this than finding ways to make the blood more gruesome and the instestines more real?).

Well, they bother, but they fail miserably. I fail to see how a digitally generated estimation of a human is any different to a digitally generated estimation of a robot. The fact that their fictional non-functioning internals are depicted as being organic or mechanical is irrelevant.

Especially if you consider a movie like Short Circuit (hmmm yes) or AI, you would be aware that the factor is not what the person is made of (or if they exist in real life), but rather how succesfully you are made to feel for that character. When you make me a game that can generate the level of empathy found in movies then you will be a very rich person.

derelict

10-14-2002, 11:31 AM

Damn! Where is the fun without hell on earth? As long as it is in a tube with no one getting killed over it!

Hey, we do need to let off steam from time to time. What better way than to live life in a game or two without boundaries nor rules?

It is sad indeed if games are censored because of so and so say that it did that and that! Whatz up,dudes!! I do agree it need let people know about the content of the game, which they did explicitly well by categorizing it for mature, violence or general users and such. So, whatz the big deal?

To parents who have kids, it is your duty to see what your kids play. Just like it is your duty to watch over your kid don't try renting a blue movie.

In an age where we literally stay in the office like 18 hours a day and sometimes 6 dayz a week... boy, steam do build, dudes. There must be an outlet to let it go. Be it sex, sports or games. It is a mode to unwind oneself or to let off built up steam. Frankly. you sure don't want to burst your bubbles in front of your bosses nor his client because you can't handle the frustration.

Scoff at me all you want but those games do let me keep my head level and cool! As a matter of fact, it keep me sane. Hey, called it therapy in a tube. :)

scribble

10-14-2002, 11:44 AM

What was the original question in this thread?
I would just like to express my opinions as i was thinking about this topic the other day and only just saw this thread today.
I'll start by stating that children should be protected from these games, (specifically under 15's, but putting an age limit on the human mind is kind of wierd, as every one develops differently).
Children have the most easily affected minds, which is why we have schools etc in the western world to teach them, mould them into work machines to make that dough. Im not saying this is a bad thing, because how else do we survive? Food isn't free, it's a controlled commodity. Before our current civilisation structure (capitalism, democracy and the mass production era) humans worked the land and also those various other jobs. Im loosing track here. But anyway as children get affected easier, they should be protected from violence, I know I would be different if i never played cops and robbers, or commando's with my friends and relatives. If i never watched a movie with a gun, or got a showbag with plastic m16's and fake grenades, I know I would be totally different today. But humans have a tendancy towards aggresion and violence as a way of survival, as i was mentioning earlier we didnt always work in factories, at desks, or in front of computers. We worked hard on the land for food... but we didntr always produce enough food to survive, but yet another tribe might of... so what better way to feed yourself then steal another tribes food, and if there was resistence, you would have to fight.. and kill, so your tribe and famalies could survive. Nowadays, you have to earn money to eat.
My mind works in a random kind of way, excuse me.. I often forget where im going with my writing.. lol.
ok back to games. When i was younger, I played frogger, grand prix, defender, pong, space invaders etc. and then some more impressive arcades like ghosts and goblins, offroad, street fighter games, and various platforms, all fairly unrealistic games (graphics wise) because of hardware limitations. Games got more realistic as I grew up, more involved, scrolling shooters etc. Wolfenstein came out, a 3D escape from a nazi castle dungeon FPS... wow.. a big step.. then doom.. OMG look at the graphics.. those aliens almost look like what real aliens would look like. From then on 3D games progressed, from 2d based sprite oppponents to 3d modelled opponets in quake. Now we have games where the people in the game look almost real. (Battlefield is a fairly impressive interpretation of war)
I find it hard to imagine what affects these types of games would have on a lesser developed mind. When I was younger my parents didnt know what games i was getting from friends and playing, like duke nukem, etc. So whats stopping todays under age kids downloading games like gta3, (believe me, this was the easiest game to find and download.. not that i do that stuff... ;P ).
I fidn it funny shooting innocent civilians in the head with the sniper rifle, or watching limbs get shot of with the high powered machiene gun. But what would a younger mind think? How would they interpret this kind of thing? Would they laugh if they saw a real persons head pop in their scope? We've all heard of cases where kids have injured or killed others replicating things they see on tele, one that comes to mind is the 13yo american boy who killed a girl he was looking after while practising wrestling moves. I could probably find many more examples... oh yeah heres one or twelve, american high school shootings/rampages. In my eyes america is the center of capitalism/exploitation, and these kinds of things dont happen where i live. Did these kids see too many violent movies games that their parents shouldnt of really let them? or that their parents really didnt know about?
Anyway, im not sure how much i've rambled on, but hopefully i make some sense, and someone understands what I was probably trying to say.
Art is nothing but ones interpretation of life, how it is, what it means, what it could be, what it could mean. Art imitates the world, and the world imitates art.

DotPainter

10-14-2002, 12:57 PM

I dont think that today's games are really THAT violent. I have unreal 2k3 and it is more of an eye candy fest and sound fest than anything else. What really gets me going is actually hearing the announcer say "ADRENALINE" more than anything else. Anyway most of the violence is cartoony violence. As a matter of fact, most of the time you hardly have time to watch the death sequences because you are too busy running around trying not to get killed yourself. The graphics in unreal are verry cartoony. Even when you see someone split in half it is still cartoony, and I do mean cartoony. This cartoony fact is reinforced by the fact that they come back to life 2 seconds later. The game reminds me of the short CG film called Indigen which takes cartoon gore to a new level. If you haven't seen it, check it out:

http://www.indigen.free.fr

Some of the games we play today are just an extreme form of American slapstick comedy as best seen in The 3 Stooges, Bugs Bunny and even more so by Itchy and Scratchy. All of these use violence as a means of humor and entertainment, which for some is offensive, but not necessarily immoral.

Other games have violence which is more realistic but not in the way of cartoon slapstick gore. I have also played Medal of Honor and let me tell you, it was not bloody (no blood at all actually) but to me it seemed more violent than unreal. Almost every time I got killed by a German sniper it made me cringe like "yeeks". So from that game, even though it was not gory, I really came awaywith a feeling of war is hell and I really would not want to do this for real.

GTA and assassin are actually the minority amongs violent games produced today. And even then Most violent games are team based FPS or War Sims and stress team play and strategy in many cases. The gore in many, like unreal or quake have been purposely designed to provide the same amount of entertainment value as a bugs bunny cartoon in terms of gore and violence. Even if the technology got to the point of being able to photo-realistically portray a person getting disembowled, decapacitated or otherwise mutilated, I think the games would still use cartoon gore. I don't think there is any entertainment value in watching a virtual person getting blown or cut up with all the blood, bones, skin, gristle and guts rendered photorealistically. That to me would be disgusting. Therefore, that is why I cannot even begin to call current games immoral since I don't think they glorify REAL violence.

slaughters

10-14-2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Harrad
...why is it that there are very few plummers running around jumping on mushrooms. and people braking in to random song and dance in the street!But, there is ! You just need to know where to look !

P.S. I'm all for that banning the Barbie thing mentioned earlier !

P.P.S. I'd rather people got their violent jollies from fictional characters and situations, instead of really acting them out like out ancestors did (Romans, Chinese, Japanese, etc...)

Zardoz

10-14-2002, 01:18 PM

I think that this is a very important issue so I want to give my point of view too.

I really don't think that video games, tv or movies can do any harm to someones mind unless it is already 'harmed'. What I mean is that it only has to do with the kids education and the main responsability belongs to the parents. I've been playing violent games since I was 8 or 9 (zx spectrum, those were the days) and I'm far from getting a gun and go out to the street and kill people. Even when I was 8 or 9 I had the perfect perception that u just can't do that. But I understand the harm this kind of media can do to a already screwed up head.

I also understand the magnitude these issues have in a country like the USA. As u can see in my avatar I live in Portugal (yes we're part of Europe) and here when someone is shot it will be in the news...in the USA u can't do that 'cause u would have news of murders all day long...of course I'm not even trying to compare sizes (geography or demography). But it has to do with your culture. Here everything is free...watching howard stern with the womens breasts censored or rude words 'covered' with that beep is wierd 'cause we don't have that kind of censorship (and this from a country that produces 50 or more % of all the world porn and violent movies). We already had 'almost' porn movies on national tv at 9 pm and it wasn't censored (it made some noise but hey it had already been broadcasted ;) I was 16 and it was great! ....). But on the other hand if u want to have a gun it's not very easy to get one and to own it legally here in portugal. Basically, 'normal, ordinary' people don't have guns. Only bad guys. In the USA kids grow up watching their parents cleaning their guns. They think it's normal to have guns. This is also another very important and complicated issue. Should u have a gun to protect yourself? Or should u 'fight' for better police? and trust in your police to protect u?
I guess the USA should rethink their guns policy. here, sometimes a kid plays with is father's gun (usually a hunter) and gets heart or killed, or hurts someone else. I really think that owning a gun is a part of the problem and a cultural one. For these kids guns become natural in their lives, and because of that accidents can happen, and more problematic, 'vengeance' against that kid in school that called me names can be obtained more easily.

2 or 3 years ago in spain a kid did is hair like the hero in Final Fantasy and cut is parents and sisters head with a sword. Yes, this is horrible, and of course he was influenced by the game. But first we have to know how does that head works. This can't be a normal child. And does tv or games have anything to do with that? I don't think so. He got that idea from games but i think he could get a different one from somewhere else and do it some other way.

What I mean with this is that it is a cultural problem and a real one that has to be fought. But well thought first. The parents have to be responsible for what they teach/show their children. Violent media should be kept away from certain kids but that belongs to the parents to decide.

cheers, pax
:beer:

Chewey

10-14-2002, 01:36 PM

Now there we have a fine example of thought that blames the gun and not the bad guy.

Euros seem to be scared silly of guns. And the greeks are scared of games.

:þ

puddlefish

10-14-2002, 02:02 PM

With very few exceptions (Ico, for one), the things that translate well to games are the things that society has told us we can't do in real life. Drive fast, destroy property, eat mushrooms to make us bigger, throw fireballs at each other and, yes, shoot people.
This is because it's vicarious, and it's fun. Simple.
Morals shmorals. Play it if you like it, don't get all preachy on everyone else if you don't.

red_oddity

10-14-2002, 02:56 PM

Chewey, us euros are only afraid when the gun is the hands of an American:p (joke...don't shoot me...)

Chewey

10-14-2002, 03:23 PM

Don't worry, unless you're a euro squirrel you're safe.

Boyd Lake

10-14-2002, 03:42 PM

Well, I for one don't believe that anyone is an island. I don't accept the argument that "whatever I do in my private time only affects me, and doesn't harm anyone else".

Just about all of what you do or even think about all day long even while playing videogames ends up affecting others in some form or another. I don't think we really know yet what the real effects are though as a result of violence in videogames, but I think it's right to explore it and evaluate games just as much as we do other media.

The first person and immersive nature of many games really does in my mind beg the question, "How does this affect how I and others are likely to interact in the future?". I'm not really that comfortable with imposing regulations, mainly because I don't trust others to make moral decisions for me in most cases.

Ratings systems like they have for movies for instance often have very confusing and blurred standards which do little to fix the problem and actually encourage objectionable content in many ways.

I don't see the market regulating itself much, since the core gamers (18-24 year old males) are the least likely to be offended by much of anything, and certainly are the least likely to exhibit much self restraint in social situations. As long as this group wants mature content in games, I'm sure there will be mature rated games.

The problem I see (and likely is what broadcast, and sponsoring entities in the article like ABC, USA, TNT etc.. saw as undesirable about the hitman content) is that much of these games end up being marketed to the very young, rather than to just the mature gamer.

It would be fine if you could show adds that kids aren't likely to see, but kids watch these cable networks and these networks aren't willing to risk alienating their largest demographic. That's a fact of life the gaming industry ought to face just like the rest of us.

Another concern to me is any game that presents violence as "fun" without consequence or moral context. Violence is part of the human experience regardless of how you feel about it and hiding our heads in the sand is in my opinion not a good way to deal with the issue. Violence in the context of defense of freedom, family, and civil rights, is very necessary albeit undesirable. However, gratuitous violence in the name of fun and "coolness" does cause me to wonder if we're going too far.

There are tons of standards on the more established media (film / TV) that gaming has never dealt with. When they whine about ratings and broadcast standards, they sound pretty naive to those who've worked in broadcast and film industries. DUH!

The poster of the original rant was really whining because he's worked long and hard on his game "Hitman 2:Silent Assasin" and he's just upset not everyone will be able to see it advertised in all it's bloody glory and that not as many family and friends will see his work on TV. He sounds pretty naive. Get a clue.

I myself recently worked on a spot for Pride F/C that was scrapped because of the same reasons. I was less upset about censorship and more upset that people responsible for the advertising design hadn't cleared certain elements, like splattering pools of blood and "Brutality in it's purest, proudest form" before I wasted my time working on the material.

Asorson

10-14-2002, 04:49 PM

"Another concern to me is any game that presents violence as "fun" without consequence or moral context."

Dude, you're forgetting that the entire pleasure of playing a video game (for me at least) is to escape from the rules, and responsibilities, and moral obligations that you have to deal with every single day.

I'm sure you've seen those ultra violent popcorn action flicks that come out every summer where the entire movie they beat and blow the shit out of each other, but within the last 10 minutes everything is solved and wrapped up in a nice big morally corract package with a big pink bow on the top. The big badass violent protagonist performs an act of mercy (such as sparing the bad guys life, or grabbing his hand and trying to save him from plummeting to his death after he kicked him off a building). The antagonist goes to prison (or dies accidentally or of his own choosing by letting go of the heros hand). The hero is instantly aquitted of all wrongdoings for the murders, thefts, and property damage that he has caused during the course of the movie all in the name of "justice". And everything is hunky dory. Don't those movies just make you want to puke in your popcorn cup!?

That is why movies like Reservoir Dogs and Natural Born Killers are a welcome relief from that boring old formula. It's nice to experience a more candid look at the dark side of the world we live in. Rather than some idealistic cartoon reality where everything is the way people wish it was.

Of course I think there is a place for both of these and all other forms of entertainment in society. Because their purpose is to entertain, not to teach. Schools are for teaching. Parents are for teaching. Movies and video games are for when you need to take a break from all that learning!

Boyd Lake

10-14-2002, 05:08 PM

Dude!......like check it out!

I'm not unaware that violence without moral aint fun. I just am not so sure I feel comfortable living in a society that has grown to find "fun" in escaping the fetters of social morays and "relief" in experiencing the orgy of blood and gore in Natural Born Killers.

I don't believe I said that entertainment needed to be formulaic to be acceptable. Just that violence portrayed as cool and fun is in my opinion harmful and will eventually erode collective and individual social sensibilities.

Agent D

10-14-2002, 05:43 PM

Unfortunately, message boards are less than ideal for this kind of discussion unless limited by number of users, and used in a point by point arguement among less than 50 people...
I think it's an interesting debate, and there are many people who have good points, as well as others who have really sucky points. :p However, I think it's getting a big out of hand. Too bad we couldn't get just a few of these guys in a controlled environment instead of a flood of long messages getting off topic and restating previous posts. (Sorry if this restates a previous post, but I'm not reading all of that stuff. :D)

tweakin verts

10-14-2002, 06:19 PM

one of my favorite quotes in dealing with violence in the media:

"images dont spill blood. Rage equiped with guns does."

Henrik Hörlin

10-14-2002, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by tweakin verts
one of my favorite quotes in dealing with violence in the media:

"images dont spill blood. Rage equiped with guns does."

I'll second that.

AND
Moral is yesterdays preferred values. Todays preferred values is still under negotiation and will be the moral of tomorrow.
So we all just have to wait to see if violence (and how much) in games and movies are acceptable from a moral point-of-view.

Personally I think that common sence can replace morals at the present in discussions so we all don't go to hell while in negotiation.

Comon sence = Personal jugement of perceptions and evaluations of the world around you with concideration of others.

Boyd Lake

10-14-2002, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by tweakin verts
one of my favorite quotes in dealing with violence in the media:

"images dont spill blood. Rage equiped with guns does."

Hmmm this sounds a lot like Oliver Stone. Actually rage without guns seemed to spill blood just as readily before guns came along, but that's another debate ;)

At any rate this quote is a feeble attempt to twist the old "Guns don't kill people...." slogan that we've all heard.

But the logic doesn't fly, since the images are a form of communication, not benign inanimate objects. Art in its most basic form is in fact communication, designed to evoke a response in the viewer.

Images and media affects all of us in good, bad, and harmless ways. Advertisers spend Billions each year on advertising and other media which does influence buying habits because what we see affects how we think and feel. Images you see around you every day are full of messages and agenda, which is designed to influence you. You can't look at that and turn around and say what you see does not affect you.

Later,

Lee3dee

10-14-2002, 08:08 PM

One of my all time favorite banned games was "Thrill Kill". Never released in the US, had to import it from europe. It probably 10 time worse as mortal kombat. U could rip off people's arms and use them as weapons against themselves.

I remeber working at Game Mania, NY, and people were constantly asking for it, becuase of all the press it received. It would definately be the game that topped all the rest as far as violence goes.

Then of course, if u wanted to talk about sniper games, Silent scope series in the arcades is a perfect example current events.

Everytime violence happens in our nation, games are the target. Im sure if game developers made games where the purple dinosaur ran around and hit children with a bat, they'd find something to blame it on.

Ive been a gamer for 20 years, and I haven't had the urge to kill anyone. well not yet ;)

Arcangel

10-14-2002, 08:42 PM

Ya know most of the biggest gamers I know happen to be fans of all the blood and gore titles that have been listed here. They grew up to be things like programmers or artist in the gaming industry. In another sense most of the gamers I know happen to be geeks. Kinda interestin don't ya think...

i play atari

10-14-2002, 08:47 PM

Im just going to stick with watching porn, because that definately inspires me to do something, just not kill.

Jhonus

10-14-2002, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by i play atari
Im just going to stick with watching porn, because that definately inspires me to do something, just not kill.

thats disgusting.

;)

Per-Anders

10-14-2002, 10:33 PM

henrik... in all seriousness, what do you think morals are?

KenM

10-14-2002, 10:37 PM

What I think must be entertaining about violent games is kinetic energy. Movement without beauty, but lots of pop, bang, and boom.

What I think is unfortunate about violent games is that blood, gore and maiming are a fact of reality for other people, sometimes daily, and often there are real connections between our lifestyle and that suffering. In such a context I think it's sad to sit on one's ass and 'entertain'. Aren't there better things to do?

GRMac13

10-14-2002, 10:44 PM

I believe this thread has run it's course. Nothing is going to be solved by everyone's (yes, even mine) philosophising. Let's put this old debate to bed and move on.

Hey, here's an interesting thread!

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=24494

gimik

10-14-2002, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by GRMac13
I'm talking about the freedom to express oneself through whichever medium they so choose, and the right of the public to experience it if they so choose. Censorship is just plain wrong.

hear hear..

the first amendment isn't just some kind of loophole that degenerates use to justify perverted behavior. it's the fundamental privilege of freedom.

no one is suggesting that a game like "the rapist" is something that would benefit society, but the bottom line is the government should not be making laws that make decisions about what media a free adult should be allowed to view or experience. the idea of a capitalistic free society is that the society itself, by way of individuals and their own decisions, determines the success of a product--not laws based on a limited group of opinions and values. a game like "the rapist" in all its gory specifics might make headlines for a week, but would theoretically still be a complete failure because an overwhelming majority of the consumer base agrees that it has negative value.

outlawing questionable media may be able to temporarily hide a few misguided kids from a moral and ethical confrontation, but you'll do an immense amount of damage to democracy and the rights of human beings.

Per-Anders

10-14-2002, 11:02 PM

i think it's down to personal gratification. it's the destructive urge, and since this is most prominent in boys that's what these games target. that people get desensitised to violence or violent behaviour, because regardless of the actual target, it being real or not, the behaviour towards this target is less than human. if a person cannot feel for another simply based on seeing them or a representation of them, then the fault is with that person, after all a child can says "face" when they see merely a circle with two dots in it, so they've made the connection between a basic representation and the real thing.

when people are desensitised to violence behaviour in whatever context they're basically saying this is acceptable, and if they're unable to empathise with those people in the games... well what chance does anyone else have? most people on the streets we don't talk with, yet if we saw something bad happen to them... would be empathise? would it affect us? if not, simply because "they never give us any reason to empathise/have any sympathy"... well sorry but that doesnt cut the mustard.

chewey the reason euro's fear guns is cos the kind of person that feels they need to own a handgun or an automatic is exactly the kind of person who shouldnt own a gun at all. guns have no function but to kill, people state "oh but knives can be used to kill" well this is true, but they can also be used for other purposes. people that need guns are the following : police (and related), farmers/gamewardens, vets, military personelle. if you live in a society where you think that a gun will protect you... then your society is a prime example of why people shouldnt be given guns (also worth noting owning a gun statistically increases your likely hood of being shot, and pulling a gun on someone who's already got the innitiative makes it pretty much a sure thing).

anyway back to games. as i said before a lot of games are for the id, the id perhaps shouldn't be the only thing thats satisfied by entertainment.

the most rounded and balanced people i know aren't excesively into personal gratification of their id, they're aware of exactly when is too much, for them they're willing to put something in to get something out, and hence get as much if not more entertainment through pursuits that have as much stimulation for the ego as for the id. those i know who're purely into the id are drop-outs. i would have thought that most people on the board here enjoy producing 3d imagery. surprisingly enough this is in fact entertainment of a sort. you can enjoy doing things and it doesn't have to tap into the primal urge, after all we're no longer primal anymore are we? per adua astra and all that.

RobinOberg

10-14-2002, 11:23 PM

Hitman2 is great, you can sneak up behind people and strangle them with fiberstring :D Or my favorite, snipering everyone down, from far far away :) Or just go on a killingspree with a 9mm pistol with silencer :D

And whats so immoral about a guy who shoots bad guys in order to save his priest friend? Ok, its a very bad thing to kill people, but in comparizon with UT2k3 its a game made for angels, they dont even use cursewords...

I hate FPS games, but the gameplay in this game is just too fun to pass. it feels way too unrealistic though, getting shot thirty times and you still have enough energy to run around and kill everyone. But its still better then UT2k3, where you can jump thirty meters and land without a scratch :)

And I think it would have been great if that freaky sniper d00d thats loose in the states would sit inside all day playing Hitman2 instead of shooting kids and women, cause thats what Hitman2 does best, let you let out your steam :) Its a great game to play when youre angry or just tired at/of someone, like your teacher or your boss.

lildragon

10-14-2002, 11:24 PM

GRMac13: please check your pm, and that last thread was done in very bad taste...

salud

Jhonus

10-14-2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
when people are desensitised to violence behaviour in whatever context they're basically saying this is acceptable,

I hope your a vegetarian.

and if they're unable to empathise with those people in the games... well what chance does anyone else have? most people on the streets we don't talk with, yet if we saw something bad happen to them... would be empathise? would it affect us? if not, simply because "they never give us any reason to empathise/have any sympathy"... well sorry but that doesnt cut the mustard.

Fortunately most people can make the vital distinction that the actions carried out in a game bear no resemblance to real life.

I think you missed my original point. After watching 100 deaths in a game you become bored with the deaths. This is desensitisation occuring within the game. If you think this desensitisation is somehow equivalent to watching 100 real-life deaths then perhaps you are the one we should be worrying about.

Just quit trying to mingle real-life and virtual. They don't correspond. I must have seen close on a million deaths in computer games, yet when I saw one man fall off the town hall and die... hmm... lets just say I wasn't prepared for it any sort of way by computer games.

after all we're no longer primal anymore are we? [/B]
Wishful thinking?

Per-Anders

10-14-2002, 11:40 PM

nope there's just no tags on this board ;)

oh but i'm not vegetarian, however there's a difference to be between a human and an animal. i'm not into athropomorphisation.

i should have also added to my list of poeple allowed to carry guns, primary school teachers.

Raji

10-15-2002, 12:24 AM

hmmmm not quite sure what to post... a lot of crazy stuff has been said in this thread and i read the first 3 pages, after which i felt the whole thing started going in circles. Here's my addition to the eternal circle hehe.

Basically I just want to support the original post by googlo that somehow got ignored and was very quickly forgotten.

Some people go through certain experiences that make them react to games or entertainment in different ways. September 11th is a good example unfortunately. I say unfortunately because that subject has been beaten to death already. Nobody in the few days after the event would have been able to play a flight simulator and smash into a tall building _in the same way_. There was disgust in the hearts of 90% of Americans etc etc. So all of a sudden, MIB 2 didn't have the two towers, nor did SpiderMan, and Arnie proudly walked onto the Jay Leno show with an american flag while his movie was just about to entertain people with massive destruction and killing caused by terrorism. oops. Sorry, we'll release it later when you've forgotten all about it.

The weird thing is that violence slowed down after the very real events of September 11th and people all of a sudden remembered what it meant to have violence and death as a part of our lives. Our _real_ lives.

So what does that mean for entertainment? As far as I'm concerned, it means we _know_ it's wrong, because when the real thing happens and it's shocking enough (like 9/11) we take a break from our normal violent fantasies and ponder upon the terrible things that someone ELSE did (but that we secretly thought up).

You don't think so? Then you're lying to yourself. The world stopped turning during those events because we felt the real effect of real death and real destruction. Americans were nice to eachother for a while!

I think we all know violence is wrong. Like Googlo said, we just either get desensitized or we simply don't have that experience.

I've witnessed terrible things in my life and yes i have a problem with certain kinds of violence. We all do to a certain extent. At some point everyone will say "hey that's not right!".

But on the other hand, GRMac has a good point. You can't have one person decide for everyone else what's wrong... that's communism right? Enforcing laws against kids buying violent games isn't a bad idea though. It would prevent kids from buying things their parents don't want them to. Come on, parents can't be blamed for everything! I agree that unfortunately parents are getting worse and worse with disciplining kids. Enforcing laws agains kids buying violent games would make things clearer: are parents buying violent games for their kids? cause the kids can't buy them anymore! Does nobody think that's a good helper? I think it would be. It would help people to understand where to point their fingers. I don't think blaming is necessarily good, I'm just saying it'll put pressure on parents to be more careful at least.

Hitman 2 didn't bother me. I've played a bit of the demo and i don't mind. I can't relate, never had fights. Well one fight in high school and i quickly learned my lesson and never did it again. Mind you that was in the very early 90s and i didn't have computer games. Hitman 1 was great. I enjoyed it.

Finally, most people here have made it clear that they can make the difference between reality and games/entertainment. That's great. I think in the end that's what matters. I do believe however that like someone else said, watching lots of violence or playing violent games will certainly affect the viewer to a certain extent. Anyone who disagrees, forgive me for saying this, is an idiot... I mean all you have to do is look at the past few decades and see how increasingly violent and sexual things have become... not to mention language. Look at movies/tv especially (because games weren't capable of showing much anyway). What used to be rated R is now rated PG. There aren't many G movies anymore... although those are usually some of the best.

I say allowing violence in your home is a decision you alone can make as the consumer. Whether it's ok or not is always a personal decision. You wanna watch R rated movies? fine, but don't complain when your kids hear screaming and swearing while they sleep and then replicate it a few days later.

Laughter is more fun for everyone to watch and THAT actually requires creativity. I'd like to see much more stuff like Lilo & Stitch, Pixar work, classic Disney movies etc. And please don't nit-pick and point out the crap Disney did with "secret" sexual stuff. You know what I mean. I mean good quality entertainment for the whole family.

I have a new-born in my home now and there is no way I'm going to expose him to crap and tell him it's art. It'd be like telling him "son, eat this dog crap, it tastes good after a while".

lol

that's it for me. I've said too much already.

Raji

Gentle Fury

10-15-2002, 12:51 AM

Let me just make one point here that exceeds the social and the political realm that this discussion has entered. Storyline. When i play a game like GTA3 or Wolfenstien i dont care about the other people in the world.....they are all cannon fodder.....they arent even people. They are mean to you and they attack you. They are the equivalent of a person painted on a board in a shooting range. There was another poster that had mentioned relating with the main character. This is a valid point and it exists in more forms then just games. In a movie if you dont sympathize with anyone then it is a crappy movie and probably has nothing in it but a bunch of explosions and fx. So, is it that you are looking at people on a screen, or pixels and/or polygons on a screen that evoke emotions? No, its the story behind what you are seeing.

Let's look at the game Deus Ex. You get to choose the path you take. You can choose to play the game diplomatically and never kill a single enemy, or be rambo and kill em all and let god sort em out. There are missions where you are supposed to assasinate people, but you still have the choice as to whether you go thru with it or not. There is no game over until you get yourself killed. If you are supposed to capture and interigate someone but you decide to blow his brains out before doing so, the game still progresses. This game not only has a great storyline with a gripping cast of characters but you also get to choose how you go about completing your tasks, thus being more realistic. It can be very violent or you can use gas grenades and tazers and do the peaceful take down. Very cool concept for a game.

Now lets look at Half-Life. Another game with a killer story and a gripping main character. This time though you dont have a choice how you complete things and the other people in the game are useless and rather obnoxious! There was nothing better to do when you got stuck and had nothing to do then to find new and original ways to kill the hordes of annoying scientist walking around the facilitys (ie. The Good Guys.....) There were rarely reprecutions for doing so, other then needing one to open a door for you or needing to rescue a certain # of them. So, great story.....but very disconnected from reality......just plain fun.....but gets boring after a while.

And what about the all important (and in my opinion all boring as all hell) Quake series. You run around with no regard for anything. Figure out ways to get frags (at the cost sometimes of your life and/or others) which mean nothing but getting points since you dont have to worry about the consequences and you get respawned immediately following your demise! This type of game is in my opinion the most boring waste of time ever! There is no story at all! Even Q3's single player game is just a bot ver of the multi-player game! Its really just a waste of time, but a lot of people love it, so let them.

These are all different extremes! But what about games that are truly based on story and dont even really worry about how much action is going on at all times (though there tends to be a lot of it) the RPG!

The final fantasy series is definatly the best one to look at. In Final Fantasy 7 (potential spoiler......though the game is nearly a decade old now, so it doesnt really matter) there is a love interest between 2 of the main characters. The main character, Cloud, doesnt know about his past.......he is introduced to a character name Aeris (Aerith in the japanese ver) . They fall in love........the story is such that you REALLY get to know these characters. I mean after going thu the 20 or so hours of this love story gradually building you really get to know the characters and actually grow a bond with them..... Before i move on i want to bring up that point. The characters are really crappy looking. Very blocky low poly characters. But somehow you really start to relate to them and feel that nothing can happen to them since they are the leads! Then something happens about half way thru the game that changes the entire direction of the game. Aeris is murdered by the main antaganist, Sephoroth! I ( and many of my friends that were really into the game were with me on this) nearly cried when that happened! There was such a bond with the characters that it really meant something when you see the low poly, non-human looking very stylized Sephoroth inpailing the also low poly and non-human looking very stylized Aeris' chest with a 2 poly sword!! Why??? Because of the story!!! For the same reason that people cry when they read a really good book and a character is killed.

People arent becoming desensitized........its just that most violence in movies and games and tv are NOT realistic, they are nearly comical! When you watch Jet Li kick the crap out of 50 faceless henchmen, do you feel bad for them??? Of course not, they are not human. But when after all that went on in say City Of Angels, did you not feel the least bit moved when she dies after she finally gets to be with him at the end??? So again we are not becoming desensitized, we are just human. If you watch something silly like an action movie you dont give a crap, but when you really get to know the characters and then something happens it means something, because you then consider them human.

This is why real life violence is not a nice thing, nor is it entertaining nor is it funny. If you saw someone in a game get their head blown off, no matter how realistic it may look the worst your reaction would be to look away and say yuck. But if you were standing at a bus stop and all of a sudden the guy waiting next to yous head exploded you would be mortified and terrified! You would not find it humourous, nor would you find it entertaining. You would probably have to see a theropist for many many years to undo the damage.

SOOOOO, i dont know if i have honestly proven or disproven anything, but i have gotten a chance to express my opinion :)

Happy Rendering!!!!! And Bitching!!!

Per-Anders

10-15-2002, 01:03 AM

why would you say yuck about the movie sequence? if you're saying that it's cos the movie makes you feel no sympathy... well, would you turn away and say yuck if a movie showed a cow pat exploding? or anything else? unlikely, it's because you are aware on some level that it's a human head. it's empathy... admitedly it might be very little, but it's still some. hell it's good that there is any at all.

Chewey

10-15-2002, 02:05 AM

"Does anyone remember pithy?"
-led zeppelin

Zardoz

10-15-2002, 02:14 AM

You can't have one person decide for everyone else what's wrong... that's communism right?

this is completely out of the forum, but hey it's just a small correction,

Raji , having a person deciding for everyone else isn't communism, its dictatorship, or badly 'followed' communism.

I really don't like the ideals in communism (communism belongs to the left wing of polytics and i'm more of center/right wing) but you are supposed to be free and to decide for ourself. If you read Marx's books you'll understand that communism isn't what you have in china, cuba, or the old soviet union. It just happens that in these countries they are rulled by people that can't read right.

Americans have such a wrong idea of what communism is. In the world we never had a country living in communism...

pax:beer: :beer:

PhilOsirus

10-15-2002, 02:24 AM

Hey I love the Hitman 2, just played for the past 3 days and it's awsome.

But listen! You people are artists and threw away the art part of it. The story is about a man who has been created, and used, as a tool for murder for the sake of an Agency's profit, and is forced to go out of retirement to save his best friend, to go back to the old job he had come to hate.

So I saw deaths I don't know how many times, but I'm not the one with a sick mind who suddenly starts to think that deaths no longer have meanings because some virtual-animated-polygon-characters died in a videogame (bad guys too).

You won't find a lot of people where I come from that beleive that hate criminals and the likes of them as much as I do, yet that didn't stop me from enjoying Grand Tefth Auto 3 or Hitman.

GTA3 made me laugh at the organized crime as it was one giant charicature of our stupid crime infested cities. It sure was funny to be able to blow up some crime-lord's car as he entered it, or see the japanese mafia kill another mafia leader saying "you killed my brother!" while I, the hitman, had done it and was being congratulated for capturing her brother's "killer":D It felt good to get back at people I can do nothing directly about in the real world. Same goes for Hitman2 or Max Payne.

And you know what? In the end I have the same views as before, and the same anger towards killers and organized crime. Why? Cause normal people don't blur the lines between fact and fiction, and I'm one of them. And don't forget, we are millions and millions around the world who play videogames, so don't crash our party because you found one nutcase:scream:

Thank you and have fun:)

Chewey

10-15-2002, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"
Hey I love the Hitman 2, just played for the past 3 days and it's awsome.

snip

Be careful, some Korean guy died doing that 3 day in a row, game playing thing.
;>

neurofaux

10-15-2002, 04:11 AM

i think violent video games are a method for human beings to channel their animal impulses. better in front of a monitor than in real life, and better moreso if you're the parent that successfully delineates reality from fantasy for your child so (s)he doesn't grow up a kook.

and on the subject of parenting, i think it's easier for the prude generation of what ever spawned the gen-xyz that'd follow to blame the entertainment industry for their shortcomings in the parenting department.

ultimately we need to have a firm ground on behavioral science and emotional intelligence, and understand that it's just a game, and that imagination should not be shackled by what might offend somebody.

GAME ON!

Gentle Fury

10-15-2002, 04:35 AM

I just stumbled across this a min ago:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar02/31536.asp

I thought it was a joke till i realized it was a real paper and not. His mother thinks his death was caused by everquest?????? lol.....warning labels?????? omg.......hmmmmm lets see......25 years old, lives with mom, who tells him all the time not to play the game.........has epilepsy.......plays the game 12 hours a day??? I think there were more problems in his life then a damn game!!! But of course always blame the games! The most ridiculous part of it all though, is that something like that would actually be taken seriously!!! I feel really sorry for people like this, having to deal with crap like that.......its really sad

Gentle Fury

10-15-2002, 04:42 AM

this is funny as hell :)

http://www.theonion.com/onion3726/video_game_character.html

GRMac13

10-15-2002, 04:44 AM

Most games do come with some sort of warning for people who suffer from epileptic seizures. In fact, for just about as long as video games have been around it's been a known fact that the flashing/strobing effect of pixels blazing across the screen can trigger seizures in epileptics. The only people at fault in that situation is the guy who died (and to a lesser extent, his mother). It's a shame that this kid died, but if you willing do something that puts your life at risk, why should anyone else be responsible if you die? It's like smokers suing the tobacco companies or fat people suing McDonald's. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions.

Valkyrien

10-15-2002, 04:57 AM

hell, if i had a PS2, I'd buy it!:)

Revilo

10-15-2002, 05:39 AM

sigh I really wish ppl would live an let live. no further comment. Oh I think Hitman 2 is out for PC too isn't it? If its really as violent as they say it is I'm gonna go buy it right now :)

.oO-cloak-Oo.

10-15-2002, 05:50 AM

ok, I know I said I wasnt going to reply to this thread anymore, but I have one more thing to say. We all know how fast the gaming industry and technology advances, so heres an interesting thought: What will you opinion be on the matter when one day game graphics are photorealistic? We are getting close, but still not there yet imo. (although doom 3 looks pretty friggin nice) Will killing someone be as fun when it looks completely real? What about VR? (if it ever really gets its way into all our homes like pcs and game consoles, which it probably will) I know its only speculation, but kinda crazy to think about. For people who already have problems distinguishing between reality and fantasy, it will only become harder as games improve. Bottom line is some may be able to handle it and some most definitely not, but that goes for anything (guns, alchohol, etc..) and too much of anything has the possibilty of becoming a very bad thing. Anyways, there has been some really thoughtful ideas expressed here and it didnt get as out of hand as I initially thought it would.

Oh, and that fighting game, were you have the option to rape the opponent if you win, that someone mentioned is pretty messed up. Who would find that entertaining? (please dont answer this question) Especially if you know someone that was a rape victim.
:annoyed:

mikey11

10-15-2002, 01:22 PM

I find it sad that with all the increase in violence in the States in the last couple of years (gotta wonder why its all happening there...) that game companies, movies, etc aren't taking any hints and are more violent, graphic than ever before. Why does this sell so well in the states?? And why, after all these incidents in high school shootings, snipers, etc, do the states have perhaps the most lenient gun laws around?? Who needs guns anyways?
And even if you can argue about freedom of speech, whatever, dont try to tell me that all these "tough" music artists like Eminem, Marilyn Manson and all those disgruntled rappers with their angry lyrics arent affecting our next generations outlook on life...

I dunno, maybe its just me, but the first images that pop into my head these days when I think about the US is hollywood movies, guns, angry music, and more guns :-)

[msf]

10-15-2002, 01:28 PM

well this thread has garnered alot of attention. Here is one easy way to put it. Everyone has seen Star Wars. Did you care when the death star was blown up? Think about how many people were killed in that act of righteousness? Or how about when the death star blew up a planet? We are talking billions of people dead in an instant without doing anything to harm anyone?

just a little question to ponder.

oh and on the question who needs guns anyways? Illiterate rednecks need guns. Well the bush administration thinks so anyways.

mikey11

10-15-2002, 01:38 PM

One more point I just have to make:

What other country out there feels its necessary to have its army distribute a first person shooter to anyone or any kid who wants it?? The only army I can think of is the US army...Talk about promoting violence...

Chewey

10-15-2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by mikey11
I find it sad that with all the increase in violence in the States in the last couple of years (gotta wonder why its all happening there...) that game companies, movies, etc aren't taking any hints and are more violent, graphic than ever before. Why does this sell so well in the states?? And why, after all these incidents in high school shootings, snipers, etc, do the states have perhaps the most lenient gun laws around?? Who needs guns anyways?
And even if you can argue about freedom of speech, whatever, dont try to tell me that all these "tough" music artists like Eminem, Marilyn Manson and all those disgruntled rappers with their angry lyrics arent affecting our next generations outlook on life...

I dunno, maybe its just me, but the first images that pop into my head these days when I think about the US is hollywood movies, guns, angry music, and more guns :-)

fyi, crime stats in the states are down. Those are the facts not the hype.

GRMac13

10-15-2002, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by mikey11
What other country out there feels its necessary to have its army distribute a first person shooter to anyone or any kid who wants it?? The only army I can think of is the US army...Talk about promoting violence...

I guess it's better than the mandatory military service that most countries have. Or we could do like some other countries and just arm our kids with Karishnikov's from the age of 10. Better video games than "bomb belts" that what I always say.

PotatoHead

10-15-2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by GRMac13
I guess it's better than the mandatory military service that most countries have. Or we could do like some other countries and just arm our kids with Karishnikov's from the age of 10. Better video games than "bomb belts" that what I always say.

you've got a point there GRMac13. it is true that we shouldnt let our children run around with grenades....they might think its funny to play cops and robbers with 'em.

but on a serious note, i also think its a bad idea to let every willing human over the age of whatever carry a shotgun around with them. there's a slight disproportion of power there, people should not be allowed that much.

I dont know if its true, but i heard that in texas you're allowed to take the life of any human that crosses the border of your possession. if thats true, then isnt that horrible and irresponsible of the state to allow people to do that? picture this: a mentally disturbed/sick person owns a gun because he can afford it. ok. the mailman walks to his house and as he is about to throw a letter into the mailbox, he is shot. maybe thats a little exaggerated, but come on! that is insane!!

returning to the topic though, i'd like to add that games that show/feature violence should not be banned, on the contrairy, i think they should be available for everybody of a certain age-group. its a good way to relieve stress! when im pissed off, i sometimes kick "someone's" (note the quotation marks) ass really bad in virtua fighter, or duke nukem, and then ive cooled off and i feal like reborn!! but again, there are some people with mental disorders or with an inapropriate household, then of course, there are side effects, such as kids coming into school with a glock, from their older "friend"...but those incidences are marginal and shouldnt be taken too seriously - which does not mean the problem shouldnt be dealt with at all, no, because it IS an issue.

I hope i clarified some points here.

-Tom

Chewey

10-15-2002, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by PotatoHead
snip

I dont know if its true, but i heard that in texas you're allowed to take the life of any human that crosses the border of your possession. if thats true, then isnt that horrible and irresponsible of the state to allow people to do that? picture this: a mentally disturbed/sick person owns a gun because he can afford it. ok. the mailman walks to his house and as he is about to throw a letter into the mailbox, he is shot. maybe thats a little exaggerated, but come on! that is insane!!

snip

No, that's not true. You post is seriously factually challenged and meaningless.

Raji

10-15-2002, 04:18 PM

hehe this thread is never gonna end. It's an interesting subject though; we just had a short discussion here at work about it. I think we agree that something needs to be done to control this rapidly growing business, because history has showed us that anything that gets left to do what it wants will eventually get out of control and cause a lot of harm.

We also agreed that we can't just blame the gaming industry for every violent act. I read the article about that guy who committed suicide after playing constant EverQuest and the truth is that guy had TONS of problems _before_ playing the game. It's easy to blame whatever it was that was done before he committed suicide. If he'd been playing soccer before killing himself, they would have sued FIFA or something to force them to put a warning on all soccer balls.

"They're Marlboro _Lights_ they're hardly even cigarettes" -- Hearts of Atlantis

Raji

PotatoHead

10-15-2002, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Chewey
No, that's not true. You post is seriously factually challenged and meaningless.

im sorry i cant back up what ive sead with facts, but i dont endorse in that kind of behavior (ie: buying guns, etc. ), because my country does not allow it to such an extent as in the US, and im not overly interested in it either. i just thought it would be appropriate if i could add some of my feelings to the overall jumble of emotions and points of view.

mikey11

10-15-2002, 04:38 PM

I think it would be an interesting comparison to see the actual differences in crime levels, disfunctional families, etc between the US and Canada, their northerly neighbours. Up here we have strict gun laws, which although far from perfect, are very much there compared to the States. Also, our media stations do not bombard us with useless 5 minute updates on the "terror" situation, which i feel is just instilling a cloud of fear over the US population rather than doing any good (Of course, any canadian with cable can just tune into US stations...)

Im sure any study would find that Canada is a much more "peaceful" (for lack of a better word) place than down south.

Chong

10-15-2002, 04:39 PM

People need to get away from these electric boxes and breathe some air. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what you watch, play, or in our case here, post, it's the fact that you're in front of a screen that's the problem. When you watch tv or a movie, your mind becomes passive, this is good sometimes, but not as often as our society does it. Same thing with videogames, depending on the game, you're constantly stimultating the same part of the brain, no variation. Sure, you're working on motor skills, sometimes reasoning, but to do it repetitively for hours on end?? not that healthy. We (myself included) are killing ourselves psychologically and physically. We're turning into a society that sees less and less sun, and it's not good. It warps the way we think and behave.
All this stuff about free speech, morality, whatever....they're moot points. Discussing them is fun, but it won't solve anything...
There was a time when counting the number of snowflakes that fell on your hand was a game. Sure, it seems like a boring f*cking game to me, but it would probably do me better than 4 hours of Counterstrike, or GTA, or Hitman, or .....

Chewey

10-15-2002, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by mikey11
snip

Im sure any study would find that Canada is a much more "peaceful" (for lack of a better word) place than down south.

Try the south pole. The good news is that any study would show that it's just as boring and dull as Canada is.
lol!

But seriously,
I think Chong has the right idea. We should all step outside, get away from the silly tube and go surfin in the warm California sun.

mikey11

10-15-2002, 04:51 PM

I agree....pretty soon we are all gonna start having wires coming out of our heads and even the most sane people will start believing these games, movies are real life :-)

im gonna quit and become a forest ranger!

paccollective

10-15-2002, 05:35 PM

I find it interesting that the first few responses implied several religious references although no religious references were made in the initial thread. Morality is culturally specific, questioning the content of games is a legitimate ethical concern at a cultural and social level. Don't insert theology when none was indicated in the given context.

In other words, merely dimissing this thread as religious rhetoric is a cop-out, think about what was written and reply accordingly.

-pac.

Neil

10-15-2002, 07:29 PM

Do you know all the parts of the brain?
How do you figure you only use 1? You have to use problem solving skills, memorization, reflexs, hand eye coordination..etc.

If you don't like FPS games, then just don't buy it. As long as it sells, the game companies will continue to make them. Christ, we are on John Madden 10 and yet you fools keep buying those. The difference is that i CAN go in the backyard and throw a football, but i CAN'T go drive a car at 100mph on the streets or slay an Ogre with my knife that has +5 against Ogres :)

[msf]

10-15-2002, 09:47 PM

People are nicer in Canada becuz its freezing up there ey.

I dont know what all the fuss is aboot.

Chong

10-15-2002, 10:19 PM

I don't ever write long posts, except this one. As Said by Neil:

"If you don't like FPS games, then just don't buy it. "

I'm a gamer, no doubt about it, and I do like FPS games a lot.

"Do you know all the parts of the brain?
How do you figure you only use 1? You have to use problem solving skills, memorization, reflexs, hand eye coordination.."

All I'm saying is, you're only stimulating the same part of your brain, per game you play. Because of Unreal Tournament for example, I developed my reflexes and hand eye coordination. I'm never going to develop problem solving skills because of unreal, not to the extent I'm developing the others anyway.However, I could have easily developed hand-eye coordination and relfexes from practicing karate, or playing a team sport. the difference would be this:

If I played the Sport:

Develope Hand-Eye Coordination
Develope Reflexes
Get some exercise...
Strenghten my muscles..

If I played the Unreal:

Develope Hand-Eye Coordination
Develope Reflexes
Strain my eyes
Develope Headaches
Miss out on Sunlight and "fresher" air.

These cases don't apply to everyone, I'm just illustrating a point.

"The difference is that i CAN go in the backyard and throw a football, but i CAN'T go drive a car at 100mph on the streets or slay an Ogre with my knife that has +5 against Ogres"

You get more out of life if you actually live it. It isn't really escapism when you play videogames because they don't reflect real life.
Standing over a person and kicking them till they bleed a fountain is actually funny in GTA3. Try doing it in real life. You won't feel so great about it.
In UT, I can see someone coming a mile away. I'm gonna use my quick thinking to run behind a pole and wait for them to pass me. As soon as I see their back, bang, they're dead.
Trying doing that in real life, like say...PaintBall. I'm in the woods, my goggles are fogged up so I can't really see anyone in the bushes. I finally catch one of the other players making a run for it, I try shooting him but the gun keeps kicking with everyshot and I miss....I was trying to use the same part/parts of my brain for each of them, but I'm doing two completely different things. You're not driving a car down the street at 100 mph Neil, youre holding down the X button and Steering with a Joystick....Escapism is fun. And I like doing it. I'm just saying we shouldn't do it so much, and shouldn't think it's helping us in any way. It screws up your real life.

googlo

10-15-2002, 10:41 PM

oh and on the question who needs guns anyways? Illiterate rednecks need guns. Well the bush administration thinks so anyways.

That's completely untrue. That's likes saying all computer gamers are fat reclusive ugly nerdy guys that can't get anything else in life so they look to computer games to fill their lives with excitement and partially naked women, even when the women in the games aren't exactly human.. How messed up is that?

I went to college as a physics major and left with a 3.8 GPA average. My dad collects guns and artifacts from WWII. His home is full of guns including munitions ranging from that required of various hand guns to 16 inch battleship shells.

So to say what you did is really as ignorant as the 'people' you are chastising.

And by they way. Because my mom had a handgun she prevented a guy from breaking into our house by banging on the door opposed to the room the theif was in with it and yelling that she had a gun and was willing to use it.

Another time my dad prevented two guys from taken a women away who was screaming that they were going to rape her. He heard screaming and went to check it out and she was yelling to him that the men were there to rape her. He didn't know what the truth was so he drew his gun on the men and told them to stay where they were or he would shoot, and so they did. Another person went and got the police and they took care of it.

Also, living up in the mountains my mom has used a gun as a safety measure against things like mountain lions that would occasionally threaten her two dogs. Here we have mountain lions as well seen crossing roads or on peoples decks or threatening pets. My brother and I were even grabbed playing outside once during Thanksgiving because a mountain lion was seen under a tree only few hundred feet from where we were playing outside.

A similar instance happened here when a police car crashed and the K9 unit inside was brain damaged from it and became violent. My brother and I were like 4 yrs old then and with our mom. It was at night and we were intially trappend in our car, we eventually were able to make it into our house but it wouldn't leave. We didn't have any guns then and so were essentially defenseless. Oh wait, my mom did try to protect us with a shovel... Eventually, the sheriff came and they shot and killed it I believe. But the sheriff wasn't there are able to be there in the time we were trapped in the car, or running to try and get into the house before the dog attacked. If my mom had a handgun with her, the situation would have be resolved immediately.

I could use many more examples of where 'evil scary' guns could have been used by people who needed that kind of power to protect themselves because there just wasn't the time or the means for the proper authorities to be there when necessary.

I have female friend who has a license to carry a 45 hand gun to protect herself. Whenever she goes hiking or camping she brings it with her. I don't think that's irresponsible at all. I think it's common sense.

My grandma would carry a small 9 mm pistol in her purse. I know another lady who carries a small handgun with her as well for protection, and she's a democratic liberal.

Guns are an amoral thing. People are the problem when it comes to their abuse. Most people have improper perceptions of guns. I think a big part of it is due to the fact that a lot of people live in relatively calm and peaceful places and all they have to see about guns are the negative stories or over golirified entertainment industries use of them.

This actually can be added to this particular game violence issue because almost all of them use guns of some manner or kind and for people growing up in gun sterile environments, it could lead to irresponsible use of guns and definitely lead to a skewed perception of them.

My twin brother and I grew up in a house of guns and we never played with them like the kids you read about now and then that shoot themselves. Our family just taught us what guns are about, how to be responsible and safe with them, end of story, no big deal. We didn't grow up power hungry or wanting to be hunters at all.