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

MCronin

10-13-2002, 04:03 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, 04:16 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, 04:16 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, 04:23 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, 04:30 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, 04:35 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, 04:36 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, 04:40 AM

why thank you :beer:

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

googlo

10-13-2002, 04:44 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, 04:54 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, 04:57 AM

i agree totally with googlo.

.oO-cloak-Oo.

10-13-2002, 05:30 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, 05:41 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, 05:53 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, 06:02 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, 06:17 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, 06:24 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, 06:40 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, 07:01 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, 07:09 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, 07:17 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, 07:22 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, 07:37 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, 07:45 AM

well put mdme_sadie

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

GRMac13

10-13-2002, 08:07 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, 08:21 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, 08:51 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, 09:00 AM

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

DotPainter

10-13-2002, 12:00 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, 06:32 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, 06:53 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, 07:58 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, 08:50 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, 08:52 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, 10:16 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

10-13-2002, 11:51 PM

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, 12:02 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, 12:09 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, 12:14 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, 12:16 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, 12:16 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, 12:17 AM

amen to that slice, amen to that

Zukum

10-14-2002, 12:30 AM

http://www.pvponline.com

my 2 centavos

10-14-2002, 12:35 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, 12:42 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, 12:49 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, 12:58 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, 12:58 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, 12:58 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, 01:01 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, 01:04 AM

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

googlo

10-14-2002, 01:15 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, 01:18 AM

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

Gilgamesh

10-14-2002, 01:24 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, 01:24 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, 01:32 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, 01:40 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, 01:45 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, 01:47 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, 01:47 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, 01:52 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, 01:54 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, 02:05 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, 02:14 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, 02:18 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, 02:28 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, 02:31 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, 02:34 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, 02:38 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, 02:43 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, 02:44 AM

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

Per-Anders

10-14-2002, 02:57 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, 03:04 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.