Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on July 29, 2004, 07:15:54 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3934277.stm
Am i the only one that gets annoyed with the moronic statements that come out whenever it emerges a young criminal had a computer game?
I mean, firstly it's an 18 rated game - he shouldn't even have the ****ing thing. And if he does, it's the fault of the parents / seller.
Secondly, if it was possible for a computer game to somehow warp people into killers (etc), surely we'd all have been killed by a crazed 12 year old by now?
Finally, how you could place the blame on one thing? Why this game, and not a movie he saw when he was 16, or watching too many episodes of Neighbours (which would induce just about anyone to a homicidal rage)?
It really pisses me off, because it's not even worthy of a debate. Every time this comes up, it's always because some kid got allowed to play a game, or watch a film, which he or she was too young to legally own.
But someone always takes the easy option of scapegoating a faceless corporation, rather than the parent / guardian (i.e. the person that bought the game for the kid), or the shop / shopworker who sold it (i.e. if the kid bought it themselves).
-
aldo: You forget one thing: who said anyone bought it?
Seriously, this is redicioulous.
-
To be fair, I currently agree with the morons.
If you expose children to things and they commit a crime, it's the fault of the person who exposed them and everyone who allowed them to be exposed to it. Though I wouldn't put it down to a single game, rather a general haze of violence.
So, I'd blame the corporations for targetting violent scenes at children (and it's a computer game, so they obviously were) and I'd take the kid away from the parents for the gross negligence they've shown.
-
ah, this old rhetoric.
y'know, if the stupid parents for these equally stupid children actually took the bloody time to actually see what their kids are buying out of video game retailers, perhaps a lot of this useless *****ing would be avoided..
that said, for pete's sake, it's only a ****ing game, that boy's prolly a fair few beers short of a carton to NOT tell fantasy from reality..
-
I'd like to point out the relaxation of censorship laws on TV (IE, more tits and ass) and a rise in teenage pregnancy.
-
Originally posted by an0n
To be fair, I currently agree with the morons.
If you expose children to things and they commit a crime, it's the fault of the person who exposed them and everyone who allowed them to be exposed to it. Though I wouldn't put it down to a single game, rather a general haze of violence.
Which would be whoever was responsible for buying it / allowing an underage person to play it.
Originally posted by an0n
So, I'd blame the corporations for targetting violent scenes at children (and it's a computer game, so they obviously were) and I'd take the kid away from the parents for the gross negligence they've shown.
I would think that it's a fallacy to presume every game is targeted at children, especially given the fact that the 18-25 (and older) age group is becoming a key demographic (especially when you consider said age group doesn't usually have to rely on pocket money).... the fact that you're getting games like Manhunt is evidence of this area being targeted by publishers / developers.
Regardless of that, there's a rating/control system in place, same as anything else with a potentially damaging influence upon the young (movies, Tv watershed, alcohol, arguably driving, glue/solvents, etc).
If a 16 year old gets pissed and stabs someone in a pub fight, you don't sue the beer manufacturer, you sue the person who sold them that beer. ( If you really want to sue someone, that is ).
And of course, there's this other case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3680481.stm - which is even dafter. Why, for example, were a 13 & 16 year old allowed to not only play a game above their age limit, but also able to get hold of guns?
More importantly, how ****ing stupid would you have to be to not realise that shooting wildly into cars, or smacking someones head in with a claw hammer, was somewhat dangerous and wrong? If anything, games show the consequences of such actions - a fairly horrible death - in a way that people can't otherwise experience (excepting the obvious way of actually doing them for real).
The question is, do we ban violent videogames becomes some already mentally imbalanced adolescent may - illegally - obtain and play them and develop a bizarre blood lust? And if so, does that mean we ban driving games (encourage speeding), football games (could lead to dangerous tackles), RPGs (could lead to multiple personality disorder), etc?
-
:blah:...
That's stupid
-
I'd like to point out a lack of sex-ed and the amount of teenage pregenancy.
-
:lol: There is NO lack of Sex-Ed here!!
We use to have teachers every Wednesday and Thursday
-
Originally posted by kasperl
I'd like to point out a lack of sex-ed and the amount of teenage pregenancy.
Arguably, the latter is evidence that some people do fine without the former (?!) :nervous:
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
:lol: There is NO lack of Sex-Ed here!!
We use to have teachers every Wednesday and Thursday
US or UK?
And was it any more ed then "don't do it"? Or actuallly "If you do it, use a rubber, and here's how you put one on."
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
:lol: There is NO lack of Sex-Ed here!!
We use to have teachers every Wednesday and Thursday
Sounds like you have a child abuse problem then :D Teachers should not be "having" pupils on a bi-weekly basis. Even if it advertised as a perk of the job :lol:
-
He said they "have" the teachers....so it's more of teacher abuse problem :P
-
Sex education at my school consisted of (it's paraphrased, BTW):
Nurse> So, I need a volunteer to.....*pulls out the plastic dong*
an0n> Metcalf! Oh, dear God! Somone hold back Metcalf! I do NOT want to see him give a detailed demonstration of how to properly fellate a plastic penis. For the love of GOD, someone stop him! NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
* an0n falls to his knees, screaming at the sky
Nurse> Do you want to come up here and teach this?
an0n> Nah. Too lazy.
Then there was some stuff about a monk and her husband. I forget the specifics.
-
The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - killing people using weapons like hammers and knives.
:wtf: I may be being a big Mr SIlly here, but surely there are lots of murders commited with these weapons by people who have never played this game, they are sort of 'standard murder kit'.
-
[q]The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - killing people by leaping into the air and bouncing off their heads while making a strange, musical tone.[/q]
-
:lol:
The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - by digging a large hole under his victims feet and once they have fallen in, pushing a large rock on top of them
-
[q]The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - killing people by consuming a large, white ball then turning and pursuing his victims, stopping only once he had devoured them whole, leaving only the eyes.[/q]
-
Well sometimes games affects to kids so much that they want "test" usually those kids already have some mental proplems and when they play Violent games something happens.
-
Yeah. Once again I see this as a case of putting the cart before the horse. I think we need to be honest with ourselves: Young boys like to kill and destroy things. I'll bet you anything that if most of those kids didn't have violent video games, they would just run around with toy weapons pretending to kill each other, because I know that's what I did. At the same time, though, I never would have dreamed of actually hurting someone. A kid who actually goes out and kills people is mentally disturbed, and probably could have been treated beforehand.
-
The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - by loading his advanced Heavy Assault fighter with Kaysers and Trebuchets and strafing him from several hundred meters away.
-
And why do people always have to focus on the evil that games do?
What about all the people who're alive because of an addiction to Gran Tourismo? Or who need never again fear being murdered by ghosts because of PacMan?
-
Originally posted by kasperl
US or UK?
And was it any more ed then "don't do it"? Or actuallly "If you do it, use a rubber, and here's how you put one on."
US
And it was more of a use a rubber and take pills kinda class... I really didn't think to much of it. I'm too smart not to mess up my life like that
-
The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - by running through the jungle with a machinegun and a machete while being chased by mutant monkeys
But seriously, it's bollocks, I been playing violent games since I was a nipper and it's had precisely ****all effect. In fact, I remember gunning down civvies for fun in syndicate when I were a mere slip of a lad (probably about 9 or 10 maybe younger) ::twitches:: you don't see me going out and doing ::twitches:: that do you?
-
Originally posted by 01010
But seriously, it's bollocks, I been playing violent games since I was a nipper and it's had precisely ****all effect. In fact, I remember gunning down civvies for fun in syndicate when I were a mere slip of a lad (probably about 9 or 10 maybe younger) ::twitches:: you don't see me going out and doing ::twitches:: that do you?
I scared the crap out of my friends by doing my best psycho voice while doing that.
"hey baby, wanna go back to my place. No. Well SCREW YOU *****. EAT FLAMETHROWER" *5 minutes of maniacal laughter*
I found it quite cathartic actually. :D
-
Video Games themselves dont cause violence. However if this person plays games and watches alot of movies, that is enough to warp their sense of reality. Children, even 14 to 16 are still very impressionable.
Cant blame the games, or the movies, cant even blame the parents anymore.
No one takes blame for anything anymore.
Im not saying anyone should, but seriously our world is like this for a reason is it not? Can we wash our hands of every problem in the world? Can we truely say games dont have an affect on people? I know i cant say that. Although i cant blame gaming on bad things, im usually eager to blame good things on gaming.
With that being said maybe games should take some responsibility in the content they provide. We dont need ultra violent video games to entertain us do we? If so, why? Is our societies lacking violence so much we trade it with violence in games and movies? Then blame those things on causing harm in society?
I think this whole argument is ridiculous, and i honestly think people need to start taking responsibility for the things thwey cause.
-
To be fair, I've been playing id games since before most of you could use a mouse, and I'm pretty ****ed in the head.
-
But is that because of the games, or the 'interesting' family life you keep describing?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Am i the only one that gets annoyed with the moronic statements that come out whenever it emerges a young criminal had a computer game?
These statements are quite understandable, though; isn't that what happens when people find themselves powerless, helpless and without a clue of what is going on? And these "murderer childs" make most ppl feel so.
We always want to know what went wrong and then fix it.
If that is not possible (e.g. due to complexity of the issue), we want to at least fool ourselves to think that we know what went wrong, then have it fixed.. to get the "piece of mind" that allows us to carry on with our daily lives.
So, teh game is evil, let's ban it!
Moronic, yep.
That said, personally I wouldn't mind seeing games involving "graphic violence" vanish for good...
-
Originally posted by castor
These statements are quite understandable, though; isn't that what happens when people find themselves powerless, helpless and without a clue of what is going on?
Well, notsomuch the victim / their family (it's understandable they want someone to blame, even if it's completely misguided), but the media & especially the tabloid press.
2 thoughts that occured'
Is graphic violence permissable if it's realistic?
How can video games 'take responsibility' for violence within - i.e. what can you actually do beyond slap on an age advisory in the same way as movies? (or will we be seeing the eyetoy used in the PS3 to compare faces to driving licenses?)
-
huh... I just played through that game last night. Not really anything special. Though at work today, it was raining outside, the customers smelled like utter ****, and I briefly got a glimpse of grabing a plastic bag and popping it over their heads. But I didn't do it....
:nervous: ...What?
-
[color=66ff00]I've heard RPG's are the staple of terrorists around the world.
Good against tanks and the like.
[/color]
-
:lol:
Come get your Car Bomb RPG today!!!
-
Methinks the people who are insane enough to really kill people already have some major family/emotional problems that needed to be dealt with. Violent games are only a catalyst for what's already there.
-
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
With that being said maybe games should take some responsibility in the content they provide. We dont need ultra violent video games to entertain us do we? If so, why? Is our societies lacking violence so much we trade it with violence in games and movies? Then blame those things on causing harm in society?
The way I see it is like this, games, like any form of art, are a reflection of society of the time of the creation of that art. If you look, the most violent games are usually grossly over the top with the violence (manhunt, GTA) that it's almost slapstick, it's pastiche, a reflection of todays society not an influence on.
-
Ugh this ugly demon has reared it's head again.
You cannot blame these things on the media. Whatever form it takes - print, film, or interactive - it's there as a creative vision and not because its creators want 12 year olds to go out and brutally gut the first person they see. The question here is not whether violent games influence people to kill, it's a question of personal responsibility. To deny that notion means anyone can cite virtually anything as an 'influence' that made them commit crime.
If someone gets glassed in a bar for looking at a psycho the wrong way, should they be punished instead? That may well have caused the guy to snap in the same way as a scumbag teenager playing Doom or whatever might. This should all be water under the bridge - this guy killed his 'friend' because he was a vicious little **** who had no sense of morality. That is the root cause of this crime and of crime in general, to deny that is to say that no-one is to blame for their actions.
-
I'm sure more people are killed or injured in alcohol-related attacks and accidents than video game-inspired violence. What are the chances of getting drink banned?
I mean, hell, America is outraged when a child kills his class mates with a gun - but more people die on the roads every day than are shot in school in a year. And yet which is considered more evil, the gun or the car?
Further proof that people are stupid :nod:
-
Originally posted by 01010
The way I see it is like this, games, like any form of art, are a reflection of society of the time of the creation of that art. If you look, the most violent games are usually grossly over the top with the violence (manhunt, GTA) that it's almost slapstick, it's pastiche, a reflection of todays society not an influence on.
I disagree. Media is not just art. Its a blend of art, communication, and even subliminal messaging. Whether intentional or not. Media has far more power then art ever does, and its impressions are felt far more then some art picture.
Although games and movies and the like are all made with what society has been impressed with, it still cant be put into the art category.
Media needs to be held more accountable for the things it can impress upon people then it already has been. It affects our societies in ways we still dont understand and the fact people have to make ULTRA violent video games to put food on their table doesnt prove to me they are artsy in any way or truely trying to be productive in our societies.
Lets put it this way. In real life, i am not allowed to kill, or maim someone. However im allowed to do this in a video game, and im allowed to do so quite violently.
In real life im not allowed to be a terrorist to any country. In a game this is OK?
What about, in life im not allowed to rape someone. But in a game this is ok?
Seriously, why is it we condone violence, but do not condone other unrealisic actions in games? I understand their is "bad taste" and such, but really what harm can it do if im allowed to rape or be a terrorist in a game?
I wouldnt want there things, just so you know. Its only an example to show how far this can go if we continue to allow one thing, but be bias and not allow another form of art. Heck, right now if i say the word terrorist out loud someone is coming to my door to ask questions, let alone play a game about it! Why is it different for killing games? Makes no sense to me....
Before you think im against violence in gaming, think twice. Im merely exploring the other side of this argument because i truely want to understand both sides to gain some insight on this problem. Maybe violence in games is ok, maybe it isnt one thing we cant deny though is it is an issue and one that needs looking into.
-
It maybe worth remembering what film Jeffrey Dahlmer watched before going out to kill someone.
Return Of The Jedi
Do I really need to say any more?
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
I disagree. Media is not just art. Its a blend of art, communication, and even subliminal messaging. Whether intentional or not. Media has far more power then art ever does, and its impressions are felt far more then some art picture..
I agree, that's true.
I've played Sldier Of Fortune (early version) when I was thirteen, and I've been watching horror/action movies with 18+ rating since I was nine.
In all that time, somehow I managed to avoid mauling and killing people. Their messages didn't quite reach me in the sense that I need to chop someone's head/leg off, and if I was able to repell them, then there are only few conclusions to be had from game related murder.
Kids have imbecile parents.
Kids are stupid/imbecile themselves.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
I disagree. Media is not just art. Its a blend of art, communication, and even subliminal messaging. Whether intentional or not. Media has far more power then art ever does, and its impressions are felt far more then some art picture.
Although games and movies and the like are all made with what society has been impressed with, it still cant be put into the art category.
Media needs to be held more accountable for the things it can impress upon people then it already has been. It affects our societies in ways we still dont understand and the fact people have to make ULTRA violent video games to put food on their table doesnt prove to me they are artsy in any way or truely trying to be productive in our societies.
Lets put it this way. In real life, i am not allowed to kill, or maim someone. However im allowed to do this in a video game, and im allowed to do so quite violently.
In real life im not allowed to be a terrorist to any country. In a game this is OK?
What about, in life im not allowed to rape someone. But in a game this is ok?
Seriously, why is it we condone violence, but do not condone other unrealisic actions in games? I understand their is "bad taste" and such, but really what harm can it do if im allowed to rape or be a terrorist in a game?
I wouldnt want there things, just so you know. Its only an example to show how far this can go if we continue to allow one thing, but be bias and not allow another form of art. Heck, right now if i say the word terrorist out loud someone is coming to my door to ask questions, let alone play a game about it! Why is it different for killing games? Makes no sense to me....
Before you think im against violence in gaming, think twice. Im merely exploring the other side of this argument because i truely want to understand both sides to gain some insight on this problem. Maybe violence in games is ok, maybe it isnt one thing we cant deny though is it is an issue and one that needs looking into.
People wouldn't buy a rape / terrorist game, though. That'd be number one as to why no-one has considered it.
The other thing is that killing in videogames is always impersonal - you kill 'people' who you know don't exist, and there is no emotional impact as a result. There's rarely anything which works hard to convince you that you're not gunning down / running over / jumping on the head of a group of pixels.
Rape, though, is probably the most deeply unpleasant and 'personal' crime possible. It's basically a form of prolonged torture - something entirely different from the simple mouse flick and press button killing of 99% of games. As such, maybe it should be accurately simulated - it would certainly let people know just how evil and despicable a crime it is.
The 'problem' with violence in games is not that it exists, but that it's hard to portray the consequences without stopping it being a game - i.e. there's plenty of wargames, but how many show the screaming agony of a dying soldier? Such a consequence free environment could have an impact* on the less balanced youngsters - but that's exactly what we have age ratings for.
And of course, there's the sister argument that violent games allow people to actually express violent emotions - i.e. to take out their rage, anger, etc (or just having had a bit of a ****ty day) upon an inaminate object rather than something in the real world.
*apparently, a study has shown that under-8s are indeed affected by what they see in games. Personally, i'm not sure I'd allow an under 8 near a game -s urely they should be out playing or something?
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I'm sure more people are killed or injured in alcohol-related attacks and accidents than video game-inspired violence. What are the chances of getting drink banned?
I mean, hell, America is outraged when a child kills his class mates with a gun - but more people die on the roads every day than are shot in school in a year. And yet which is considered more evil, the gun or the car?
Further proof that people are stupid :nod:
Well, when used correctly, alcohol is intended to get you drunk(tenous definition of correctly), and a car is intended to get you along the road from point A to B (er, not while drunk). But when used correctly, a gun is intended to kill or maim.
Hence a gun is more evil than, well, anything beyond bigger weapons.
-
....when some parents learn that it's ****ing stupid go against game developers (it's not their fault that kid did have big mental proplem or was it because they want get money from Rockstar so they want blame game
anyway parent should watch what happening to their kid so it could prevent what happened in this case.....
-
[q]
People wouldn't buy a rape / terrorist game, though. That'd be number one as to why no-one has considered it. [/q]
Then explain the japanese/manga style games that came out allowing various sexual acts against a series of questionably aged women?
-
I would say that communication and subliminal messaging are part of the practice of art.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]
People wouldn't buy a rape / terrorist game, though. That'd be number one as to why no-one has considered it. [/q]
Then explain the japanese/manga style games that came out allowing various sexual acts against a series of questionably aged women?
"Explain" and "Japanese" are two words that, when appearing in the same sentence, render that sentence useless.
-
Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/ylgame/petition.html
-
I personally think that there is MUCH better entertainment out there than ANY Rockstar games.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
I personally think that there is MUCH better entertainment out there than ANY Rockstar games.
Have you never played any of the GTA games?
Granted Rockstar have very little to do with them (other than publishing) and yes I know it's "Rockstar North" that develops them, but to me they will alway be DMA Design.
-
Hmmm. Video game player killing people with hammer. Should my parents now be concerned that I recently purchased a replica 14th century warhammer? (of course it was back-ordered so I don't have it yet. :sigh: 5 days left until the earliest time it could arrive)
--------------
I think that the blame wholy falls on the parents in this case.
Obviously, as has been stated, the media does not do an accurate job of portraying the consequences/side effects of the actions. (Another point for Freespace - the human cost is told somewhat. "We lost a place many of us called home. We lost entire squadrons, the Colossus and most of our fleet. We lost so many friends that we celebrate our victory with grief and mourning." "I'm goin down! I'm goin down!" "AAHHHH!")
But, the parents SHOULD control what their children are exposed to, and teach them what things are good for them, and what things are bad. The mother had to leave the courtroom because it was too horrible for her? Well, Mom, didn't you know what kind of games your kid was playing? Yes, parents can go overboard and be too controlling, causing the kids to rebel, which is also bad. But just letting the kids do whatever they want?
Kids, especially younger ones, have no common sense. It is the job and responsibility of the parents to impart wisdom and common sense to them. When I was six years old, I decided it would be fine to walk across the frozen swimming pool in our back yard. Smart thing? No. Would I still do it today? No. Would I have tried it again if my parents had just told me, "You know, Mark, that wasn't a very smart thing to do" and left it at that? possibly. Instead, I got grounded for a week. And, after establishing that walking across the swimming pool is something that leads to punishment, my parents explained to me why it was a bad thing.
I had about a month's worth of lectures from my parents when I bought my first sword four or five years ago. (Think I was 16 at the time, maybe 15). They knew I wanted it, and let me get it, but made very sure I knew that going down the street chopping people's heads off with it was not a good idea.
Unless the parents give the children a good moral foundation, there's always going to be problems. Proverbs 22:6 says it all - "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." I'd never heard of Manhunt before reading the article, and don't think I'll ever play it, because my parents made sure I wasn't exposed to violence much in my childhood, until I could understand the human costs and consequences involved. I've no interest in bludgening people over the head with a hammer for fun.
And I'm willing to bet my life that if Warren's parents had paid attention to the types of activities in his life, and given him a moral foundation ten to fifteen years ago that he would not have committed this crime.
Phillipians 4:8 - "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
This would have solved the whole problem.
-
Ok it always seems to go back to being the parents fault. Why is this the case? Again i ask, why does society not take responsibility for its actions?
Why is it they cant just say, violent games cause a bad side-effect and just stop making them? Or maybe make them more realistic, so when you do something wrong your punished for it in game as well. Souring the gaming experience a little.
As for the Rape Argument, yes it is quite personal. Still doesnt make sense that i cant do it in a game but i can rip peoples legs and heads off. I can even run over old ladies and steal their money.
And we say Rockstar has no mental issues? The fact they condone killing, stealing, and maiming in their games doesnt prove to me they are a positive influence on anyone or even sane for that matter. They are simply USING violence to milk you of your dollars, in the end your sense of reality is somewhat warped and they are all millions richer. What exactly is the point of this? Entertainment?
Seriously, i appreciate games like Sonic the Hedgehog for its originality, and mario brothers and stuff like that. I dont need to play a game where im someone else, killing people for fun. The fact this game is out there, and promotes killing doesnt sit well with me. I know most human beings wont resort to what they see in entertainment, however those weak humans with small minds scare me a little bit considering the things we can do in games nowadays i can only imagine the kind of killers these games will breed.
We are a society of people who only cares aboutt aking bad things away when it affects the masses, when it affects a small percentage of people, it is ignored and ridiculed. Fact is there is a problem in the world, with these violent games and we as a society need to make it stop. We dont need violence for entertainment. We are above that. Violence in a Fantasy game isnt so bad, casting a fireball spell to kill an ogre doesnt fit well into reality, therefore these kind of fantasy games sit well with me. However im all for less violent game, for more creativity.
-
But the violence is what people naturally want. These games are not re-wiring anything in the human brain; they're playing on a very, very basic instinct, just like action movies and porn.
As for making a distinction between "graphic" and "fantasy" violence, I don't see the logic. It's all based on the desire to kill and destroy, and you could actually make a case for the more sanitized violence being worse, since it gives the impression that killing isn't really that ugly.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, when used correctly, alcohol is intended to get you drunk(tenous definition of correctly), and a car is intended to get you along the road from point A to B (er, not while drunk). But when used correctly, a gun is intended to kill or maim.
Hence a gun is more evil than, well, anything beyond bigger weapons.
Depends on your approach. When used correctly, a gun doesn't hurt anyone - the idea is that the threat of its use stops you attacking me. I mean I could point a harmless empty gun or a replica at you, and you'd damn well dance if I told you to :)
The Royal Navy has a saying - 'a warship which returns from a tour having fired its guns in anger has failed in its task'
-
Well that's quite altruistic, but I think vengeance is an inevitable plague of human behavior.
-
the benefits of playing video games outweigh the problems. Problems only arise with excessive play, but that's only a small minority. Plus if it's not games it's Jackass or whatever.
Having said that, Edge magazine (in the UK) is the only games mag for adults and also was one of the few mags not to run GTA covers (most made with the assistance and blessing of Take2) Be interesting to see what Take2 had to say if accused with pimping an adult experience to minors.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Ok it always seems to go back to being the parents fault. Why is this the case? Again i ask, why does society not take responsibility for its actions?
The issue of responsibility is addressed through the age ratings system. In pretty much every case you see involving violent video games, the children who committed a violent crime were too young to legally buy the game. That is clearly not the fault of games creator, it's the fault of the vendor.
Originally posted by Lonestar
Why is it they cant just say, violent games cause a bad side-effect and just stop making them? Or maybe make them more realistic, so when you do something wrong your punished for it in game as well. Souring the gaming experience a little.
Because it's not proven - AFAIK, the only scientific 'truth' is that violent games can affect children aged 8 and under. Not to mention the obvious fact if someone buys a violent game, there is obviously some reason why they want to play it in the first place.... is it so out of the question that someone who is mentally predisposed to violence would actively seek out violent games, or indeed, any kind of media? In that case, how can you blame the game for that persons predisposition - if anything, it gives them the chance to act out violent fantasies in a safe environment.
Originally posted by Lonestar
As for the Rape Argument, yes it is quite personal. Still doesnt make sense that i cant do it in a game but i can rip peoples legs and heads off. I can even run over old ladies and steal their money.
And we say Rockstar has no mental issues? The fact they condone killing, stealing, and maiming in their games doesnt prove to me they are a positive influence on anyone or even sane for that matter. They are simply USING violence to milk you of your dollars, in the end your sense of reality is somewhat warped and they are all millions richer. What exactly is the point of this? Entertainment?
Well, yes actually. I just checked my Vice City save game - I've played it for >100 and killed around 10,000 people :eek:. Doesn't mean I'll go out and run over someone - why? Because I'm old enough to know better.
Hence the age rating system - as we go through life, we develop a more 'tuned' way of understanding the world. Our moral code becomes reinforced. So the opportunity to wilfully disregard the rules of society and do whatever the hell you want - i.e. as in GTA - is well worth taking.
Infact, for the specific issue of rape in games, it's obvious why you can't play a rape game - no sane person would want to - they'd prefer to play one which,er, 'simulated' consensual sex.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But the violence is what people naturally want
*scratches head with 5th leg* :)
These games are not re-wiring anything in the human brain; they're playing on a very, very basic instinct, just like action movies and porn.
This is a bit arguable point. I think our heads are being revired all the time - what varies is whether we are conscious of this happening or not.
Similarly, by making choices on what kind of content we bring into our lives, we can revire by our own will.. ;)
But how often it is completely conscious choice a kid makes when he starts to chop people up in a game?
Wasn't the choice based purely on the entertainment value of the game - not realizing the mind molding effect that comes as part of the deal (no even small print this time)?
As for making a distinction between "graphic" and "fantasy" violence, I don't see the logic. It's all based on the desire to kill and destroy, and you could actually make a case for the more sanitized violence being worse, since it gives the impression that killing isn't really that ugly.
But if you really (I mean really) realize how ugly it is, do you still want to see it? I don't think it is commonly realized, how ever graphic it may be.
-
All I know is, I detest violence in real life and have no use for the military mentality, but I love violent games.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Infact, for the specific issue of rape in games, it's obvious why you can't play a rape game - no sane person would want to - they'd prefer to play one which,er, 'simulated' consensual sex.
I suppose there's a whole market out there for insane gaming then. :p
-
GTA3 led me into a false sense of security; that I could do whatever the hell I wanted as long as I ran over all the cops after me and hid for 5 minutes at the end of the day, and I wouldn't even have to worry about insurance.
-
"Ok it always seems to go back to being the parents fault. Why is this the case? Again i ask, why does society not take responsibility for its actions?"
he was not society's child, we live in a culture were poeple are expected to run there own lives, not have it run for them becase a small number of individuals are running for a darwin award, wich I think these parents should get, there kid is out of the gene pool, and I don't see them getting another one, all becase of there inability to be parents.
-
and 'cos "society" is a vague noun that doesn't really mean anything perhaps ?
-
To deny media has an impact on your life, is to be ignorant in my opinion. I mean no offense at all by saying this.
One example. I've watched a few horror movies recently, and they are far more gory then i ever saw in my life.
The next horror movie i watched after that had ther same type of gore. I was not grossed out as much as i was the first time. The first time desensitized me, so that after the first time my mind was able to except it and look at it more then the first.
Fact is, the more you see something the more you beleive it isnt affecting you. Another fact is you dont usually realize it until someone points it out. You have changed due to the games you played and movies you watched, think of how you would be without those games and movies. You would be different and im sure you can appreciate that fact, which would prove my point.
I mean why do you think people want more violent, more realistic and more freedom in games? Because they dont get to do it in real life, and somehow its almost become a sort of addiction.
The mind is a very sensitive thing, until you start abusing it then over time it becomes desensitized. This is not a good thing IMO. It means we are more tolerable of these things in the future, and it doesnt sit well with me.
-
http://www.mcvuk.com/html/news/story.jsp?newsId=1928139
The story of the “Manhunt” murder case took another twist with the revelation that the game was present in the victim’s home, not the killer’s.
Narinder Pooni, media services officer for Leicestershire Police, told MCV: “Apparently the game was found but it was in Stefan Pakeerah’s bedroom.”