The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With the recent release of GTA: San Andreas, and negative Manhunt media, once again a storm of pessimistic publicity has arisen in the media concerning videogames' terrible affect on all who play them.
The campaign against our beloved pastime first really got kicking with the arrival of Grand Theft Auto 3, the first 3D outing of the series. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – and it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or 'taboo' feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make extremely good violent games get more stick than the bad developers who make pure stinkers.
But just who's idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposed clever people who should know better just plain don't. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark on the N64 was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate's legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare's subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don't know, but I do know that since the release of Perfect Dark Mr. Miyamoto has not been killed by any of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk. The fact is that everyone has this idea that if you play games you’re automatically a geek with bucked teeth, spots and glasses. How many bullies and troublemakers have you seen that look like that? Exactly.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured people possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency and Resident Evil are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting age ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Timesplitters 2, a 15 certificate? And Tony Hawks 4 as well, a 15? What is going on? Perfect Dark netted the big 18 – and I don’t remember seeing anything gorier than your average shoot-em-up. I can’t remember one thing in any of those games that I haven't seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swearword. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action supposedly adds to the story, but in games such things are said to warp our minds. This is obviously untrue on every possible level of thinking.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It's a stupid question, and one these so-called experts should be asking themselves before attacking our hobby. Videogames don’t inspire violence; violence inspires videogames. And so it is, and always shall be.
The campaign against our beloved pastime first really got kicking with the arrival of Grand Theft Auto 3, the first 3D outing of the series. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – and it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or 'taboo' feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make extremely good violent games get more stick than the bad developers who make pure stinkers.
But just who's idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposed clever people who should know better just plain don't. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark on the N64 was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate's legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare's subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don't know, but I do know that since the release of Perfect Dark Mr. Miyamoto has not been killed by any of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk. The fact is that everyone has this idea that if you play games you’re automatically a geek with bucked teeth, spots and glasses. How many bullies and troublemakers have you seen that look like that? Exactly.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured people possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency and Resident Evil are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting age ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Timesplitters 2, a 15 certificate? And Tony Hawks 4 as well, a 15? What is going on? Perfect Dark netted the big 18 – and I don’t remember seeing anything gorier than your average shoot-em-up. I can’t remember one thing in any of those games that I haven't seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swearword. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action supposedly adds to the story, but in games such things are said to warp our minds. This is obviously untrue on every possible level of thinking.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It's a stupid question, and one these so-called experts should be asking themselves before attacking our hobby. Videogames don’t inspire violence; violence inspires videogames. And so it is, and always shall be.
Videogames are a scapegoat for wannabe psychologists who are incapable of expressing human behaviour.
If videogames are an influence then so are other things.
TV, Movies, Music, sport, games, even the voices in your head that scream "kill kill kill".
If someone is messed enough to murder someone because they saw it in a film or game then it's pretty obvious they were going to do something anyway, it just depended on what influenced them to do so.
They want to place people in placid little virtu-comas without outside influence. And we'll all dance the happy prozac dance and sing about how beautiful life is. Wait, no, we couldn't sing - it might be too influencial.
If videogames are an influence then so are other things.
TV, Movies, Music, sport, games, even the voices in your head that scream "kill kill kill".
If someone is messed enough to murder someone because they saw it in a film or game then it's pretty obvious they were going to do something anyway, it just depended on what influenced them to do so.
They want to place people in placid little virtu-comas without outside influence. And we'll all dance the happy prozac dance and sing about how beautiful life is. Wait, no, we couldn't sing - it might be too influencial.
If someone decides to act in some unsocial behaviour, whether it be something mild as graffiti (referring to Jet Set Radio) to street racing (referring to Project Gotham) or even to the extremes of de-groining someone, it isn't because they've played videogames. They may have provided an idea, but the cause is the person themselves and the fact they have no self control. Most of it is primal and to say you've never felt like killing someone before is most obviously a big fat lie.
These critics are purely hypocrites.
These critics are purely hypocrites.
With the recent release of GTA: San Andreas, and negative Manhunt media, once again a storm of pessimistic publicity has arisen in the media concerning videogames' terrible affect on all who play them.
The campaign against our beloved pastime first really got kicking with the arrival of Grand Theft Auto 3, the first 3D outing of the series. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – and it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or 'taboo' feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make extremely good violent games get more stick than the bad developers who make pure stinkers.
But just who's idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposed clever people who should know better just plain don't. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark on the N64 was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate's legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare's subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don't know, but I do know that since the release of Perfect Dark Mr. Miyamoto has not been killed by any of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk. The fact is that everyone has this idea that if you play games you’re automatically a geek with bucked teeth, spots and glasses. How many bullies and troublemakers have you seen that look like that? Exactly.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured people possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency and Resident Evil are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting age ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Timesplitters 2, a 15 certificate? And Tony Hawks 4 as well, a 15? What is going on? Perfect Dark netted the big 18 – and I don’t remember seeing anything gorier than your average shoot-em-up. I can’t remember one thing in any of those games that I haven't seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swearword. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action supposedly adds to the story, but in games such things are said to warp our minds. This is obviously untrue on every possible level of thinking.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It's a stupid question, and one these so-called experts should be asking themselves before attacking our hobby. Videogames don’t inspire violence; violence inspires videogames. And so it is, and always shall be.
The campaign against our beloved pastime first really got kicking with the arrival of Grand Theft Auto 3, the first 3D outing of the series. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – and it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or 'taboo' feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make extremely good violent games get more stick than the bad developers who make pure stinkers.
But just who's idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposed clever people who should know better just plain don't. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark on the N64 was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate's legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare's subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don't know, but I do know that since the release of Perfect Dark Mr. Miyamoto has not been killed by any of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk. The fact is that everyone has this idea that if you play games you’re automatically a geek with bucked teeth, spots and glasses. How many bullies and troublemakers have you seen that look like that? Exactly.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured people possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency and Resident Evil are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting age ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Timesplitters 2, a 15 certificate? And Tony Hawks 4 as well, a 15? What is going on? Perfect Dark netted the big 18 – and I don’t remember seeing anything gorier than your average shoot-em-up. I can’t remember one thing in any of those games that I haven't seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swearword. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action supposedly adds to the story, but in games such things are said to warp our minds. This is obviously untrue on every possible level of thinking.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It's a stupid question, and one these so-called experts should be asking themselves before attacking our hobby. Videogames don’t inspire violence; violence inspires videogames. And so it is, and always shall be.