The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
A lot of people, mostly the Americans from what I've heard, don't realise what the ESRB, BBFC and ELPSA symbols are for.
ESRB state what age group they think games (American games that is) are suitable for. 'Everyone' being the equivilent to the BBFC's 'Universal' or 'U' rating.
They are printed on boxes, and sometimes the cartridges and discs, and are clearly visable. They are there basically to advise parents what the contents of games are like, and their suitability for certain age groups.
So why is it that when a violent game is released, we usually hear of how an American mother of six has tried taking a games company to court for making the games so violent?
As far as I can tell, no one can win these cases other than the developer who has clearly marked the game as not suitable for certain age groups. Therefore, if somebody buys the game as a present for someone, shouldn't it be their fault for not checking in the first place?
Even so, this is not the point I am trying to raise.
"TV causes children to become thugs!"
"Computers are the cause of all of todays troubles!"
Ever heard people say these things to you? I have! And I totally disagree with these points!
Violence in videogames is better than violence in the streets!
Ok, violence on TV and in videogames may cause people with behavioural problems to go out and do something unlawful, however, those who are completely sane can take out their stress and tention in videogames without hurting anyone in real life!
I often get annoyed and frustrated by my brother doing one thing or the other, but instead of trying to hurt him, I would rather blast his brains out in a Perfect Dark Deathmatch or vent my anger on him in an Extreme G race! That way, my brother is too preoccupied to carry on being frustrating and annoying, and we're both having fun beating each other at games!
I wonder what a lot of you would be doing right now if we didn't have computers, TV, Radio, and videogames? Maybe you would hang out with your friends. But to do what?
Some people would actually prefer to hand out with their friends, sitting on somebody elses garden wall, waiting for some reaction from someone as an excuse to cause trouble. Those people cause violence, the people who seek attention, but not of the right sort.
Videogames tend to be a relaxant, an anti-depressent, a stress reliever, and basically calm a person. They get so involved in a game and want to win so much that they forget about the troubles of the outside world and don't need to worry about anything. With the aid of a small level of imagination, you shouldn't have the urge to hurt anyone at all if you vent your anger on a three-dimensional figurine that is supposed to represent a humanoid creature!
Just remember that whilst a person is shooting Cassandra's bodyguards, blasting their way through pig cops, or fighting for the triforce, they aren't causing harm to anyone else around them!
ESRB state what age group they think games (American games that is) are suitable for. 'Everyone' being the equivilent to the BBFC's 'Universal' or 'U' rating.
They are printed on boxes, and sometimes the cartridges and discs, and are clearly visable. They are there basically to advise parents what the contents of games are like, and their suitability for certain age groups.
So why is it that when a violent game is released, we usually hear of how an American mother of six has tried taking a games company to court for making the games so violent?
As far as I can tell, no one can win these cases other than the developer who has clearly marked the game as not suitable for certain age groups. Therefore, if somebody buys the game as a present for someone, shouldn't it be their fault for not checking in the first place?
Even so, this is not the point I am trying to raise.
"TV causes children to become thugs!"
"Computers are the cause of all of todays troubles!"
Ever heard people say these things to you? I have! And I totally disagree with these points!
Violence in videogames is better than violence in the streets!
Ok, violence on TV and in videogames may cause people with behavioural problems to go out and do something unlawful, however, those who are completely sane can take out their stress and tention in videogames without hurting anyone in real life!
I often get annoyed and frustrated by my brother doing one thing or the other, but instead of trying to hurt him, I would rather blast his brains out in a Perfect Dark Deathmatch or vent my anger on him in an Extreme G race! That way, my brother is too preoccupied to carry on being frustrating and annoying, and we're both having fun beating each other at games!
I wonder what a lot of you would be doing right now if we didn't have computers, TV, Radio, and videogames? Maybe you would hang out with your friends. But to do what?
Some people would actually prefer to hand out with their friends, sitting on somebody elses garden wall, waiting for some reaction from someone as an excuse to cause trouble. Those people cause violence, the people who seek attention, but not of the right sort.
Videogames tend to be a relaxant, an anti-depressent, a stress reliever, and basically calm a person. They get so involved in a game and want to win so much that they forget about the troubles of the outside world and don't need to worry about anything. With the aid of a small level of imagination, you shouldn't have the urge to hurt anyone at all if you vent your anger on a three-dimensional figurine that is supposed to represent a humanoid creature!
Just remember that whilst a person is shooting Cassandra's bodyguards, blasting their way through pig cops, or fighting for the triforce, they aren't causing harm to anyone else around them!
Page:
Dringo wrote:
> I love watching them shake, shoot them in the foot so they hobbel
> away, count to ten and follow the blood trail and mow them down
> viciously!
ahem, nope Edgy is the Psycho calm down Dringo.
Oh I often do run into Cassandra's office and forget to put my Falcon on pistol whip....
Never mind, it's great fun listening to them scream....
um.....
> I love watching them shake, shoot them in the foot so they hobbel
> away, count to ten and follow the blood trail and mow them down
> viciously!
ahem, nope Edgy is the Psycho calm down Dringo.
Oh I often do run into Cassandra's office and forget to put my Falcon on pistol whip....
Never mind, it's great fun listening to them scream....
um.....
Veron 4 wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> I think that one thing common to nearly all
> violent games is when
> you kill a character, the body
> disappears after a few seconds.
Maybe on most games but not on
> Perfect dark.
It does happen on Perfect Dark.
Some enemies will stay if they've been killed, those knocked out will usually stay til you shoot them, however those that are dead do eventually fade away.
> Edgy wrote:
> I think that one thing common to nearly all
> violent games is when
> you kill a character, the body
> disappears after a few seconds.
Maybe on most games but not on
> Perfect dark.
It does happen on Perfect Dark.
Some enemies will stay if they've been killed, those knocked out will usually stay til you shoot them, however those that are dead do eventually fade away.
I love watching them shake, shoot them in the foot so they hobbel away, count to ten and follow the blood trail and mow them down viciously!
ahem, nope Edgy is the Psycho calm down Dringo.
ahem, nope Edgy is the Psycho calm down Dringo.
yeah, i love it when they give up. I just love holding a gun to their face. Again i would never do this in reallife.
i love laying a Laptop gun round the corner, disarmign a guard sot they give up, shoot them in the foot so they hobble round the corner living a trail of blood and getting mowed down by the laptop gun!
Edgy wrote:
> I think that one thing common to nearly all violent games is when
> you kill a character, the body disappears after a few seconds.
Maybe on most games but not on Perfect dark. On of the things i love doing is taking out guards by knocking them out. they then lay and the floor and stay there, but they are still alive. Then i love putting a bullet through their heads becasue they do just little jerk as you shoot them and their head is surrounded in a pool of blood. quality.
Of course i would never do this in real life.
> I think that one thing common to nearly all violent games is when
> you kill a character, the body disappears after a few seconds.
Maybe on most games but not on Perfect dark. On of the things i love doing is taking out guards by knocking them out. they then lay and the floor and stay there, but they are still alive. Then i love putting a bullet through their heads becasue they do just little jerk as you shoot them and their head is surrounded in a pool of blood. quality.
Of course i would never do this in real life.
I think it would be cool if the bodies would stay on the ground, and then you could blast holes in their face and head, and then get a knife, cut their eyes out and then eat them, but thats just me :)
I think that one thing common to nearly all violent games is when you kill a character, the body disappears after a few seconds.
I think that in games on current and next gen consoles, these bodies should stay on the ground.
However, I suppose that's one of the main parts of a game that is censored. And it also depends on the type of game.
Seeing dead Goomba's in Mario 64 wouldn't look right, however in a game like Perfect Dark it would be cool!
Basically, I think the gamer should have a choice. If we were given Australian versions of games instead of European, we would have the memory on our games medium to store the ability to keep these modes on or off.
In Turok games we have the choice of two different colous for blood, or none if preferred, and if I'm remembering my facts correctly, the X-box and PS2 have parental controls.
In music, there aren't that many restrictions to lyrics or music videos, although if they are played before 9pm they are often censored. So, why have so many restrictions in videogames?
Maybe it's because of the level of interactivity we get with videogames. However, in movies we get really gruesome scenes like slit throats in Braveheart, hands being blown off in Robocop, skin being pulled off an arm in Terminator 2, and people like that kind of action in movies! So why is it so bad in games?
Once again, it goes back to people stereotyping videogames. Videogames have changed since their original arcade days! They aren't cartoony anymore! And you get parents who stereotype Nintendo as people do Disney! Nintendo isn't just for kids, so if there's a game on a Nintendo system, even if it may look cute and brightly coloured, it doesn't mean it wont be violent, contain bad language, or have scenes of a sexual nature!
Hopefully on our 128 bit systems, and even after them, we'll get a choice instead of being faced with very mild violence, which limits the abilities of games.
I think that in games on current and next gen consoles, these bodies should stay on the ground.
However, I suppose that's one of the main parts of a game that is censored. And it also depends on the type of game.
Seeing dead Goomba's in Mario 64 wouldn't look right, however in a game like Perfect Dark it would be cool!
Basically, I think the gamer should have a choice. If we were given Australian versions of games instead of European, we would have the memory on our games medium to store the ability to keep these modes on or off.
In Turok games we have the choice of two different colous for blood, or none if preferred, and if I'm remembering my facts correctly, the X-box and PS2 have parental controls.
In music, there aren't that many restrictions to lyrics or music videos, although if they are played before 9pm they are often censored. So, why have so many restrictions in videogames?
Maybe it's because of the level of interactivity we get with videogames. However, in movies we get really gruesome scenes like slit throats in Braveheart, hands being blown off in Robocop, skin being pulled off an arm in Terminator 2, and people like that kind of action in movies! So why is it so bad in games?
Once again, it goes back to people stereotyping videogames. Videogames have changed since their original arcade days! They aren't cartoony anymore! And you get parents who stereotype Nintendo as people do Disney! Nintendo isn't just for kids, so if there's a game on a Nintendo system, even if it may look cute and brightly coloured, it doesn't mean it wont be violent, contain bad language, or have scenes of a sexual nature!
Hopefully on our 128 bit systems, and even after them, we'll get a choice instead of being faced with very mild violence, which limits the abilities of games.
I totally agree with your point of view Edgy. I think the real reason why so many parents try to take the videogames company to court is because they cannot accept the fact that their children are just really screwed up.
Also in order to try and take the blame away from their parenting techniques, they try to blame some animated violence which their child has played on a games console.
I think that violence should still be put into videogames, as it does give the game more believeable realism, if you shoot someone in the street, they will bleed, and if i blow the limbs from a dinosaur in Turok dinosaur hunter, i want to see some fruits for my labour.
If you were to remove violence from our videogames, not only would we be bored out of our minds, but it would be removing our basic rights of freedom of communication.
As for politicians, well they probably wouldn't even know who Mario is. Therefore i think it is a great misjudgement that they are allowed to make decisions on what we are and are not allowed to play, because they are so missinformed.
Take for example Thrill Kill, this was given an outright ban in this country because it had explicitly violent content. I have played Thrill Kill, and i didnt bite off my arm and use it as a clubbing device now, did i, further more the ban was quite unessecary as the game was pretty crap anyway.
I think that in the end it boils down to instability, instability of peoples mental state, and the instability someone feels if they think they are a bad parent.
People are grasping at straws in a desperate bid to shift the blame to someone else, and this is downright wrong!
Also in order to try and take the blame away from their parenting techniques, they try to blame some animated violence which their child has played on a games console.
I think that violence should still be put into videogames, as it does give the game more believeable realism, if you shoot someone in the street, they will bleed, and if i blow the limbs from a dinosaur in Turok dinosaur hunter, i want to see some fruits for my labour.
If you were to remove violence from our videogames, not only would we be bored out of our minds, but it would be removing our basic rights of freedom of communication.
As for politicians, well they probably wouldn't even know who Mario is. Therefore i think it is a great misjudgement that they are allowed to make decisions on what we are and are not allowed to play, because they are so missinformed.
Take for example Thrill Kill, this was given an outright ban in this country because it had explicitly violent content. I have played Thrill Kill, and i didnt bite off my arm and use it as a clubbing device now, did i, further more the ban was quite unessecary as the game was pretty crap anyway.
I think that in the end it boils down to instability, instability of peoples mental state, and the instability someone feels if they think they are a bad parent.
People are grasping at straws in a desperate bid to shift the blame to someone else, and this is downright wrong!
Yeah, I suppose. Unlike arcade games.
Page: