The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Before I begin, I’d just like to say that this is not going to be the old "Do games cause violence" thing. OK? Right, with that out the way, let’s get started.
Everyone on the Earth seems to value morals and ethics higher than anything else. If you’re a moral person, then you’re a good person. But recently I found out that in Metal Gear Solid 2, there is a point where you have to shoot a pregnant women. In all fairness shooting anyone’s wrong, but a pregnant women? Whoever came up with that must have been sick... Possibly.
Morality has never been abundant in video games. Look at the Rainbow 6 games. Going around on Covert Ops surreptitiously killing people is hardly morally correct is it? The same goes for games like Cannon Fodder and Sudden Strike. But surely none of that’s as bad as killing a pregnant women, is it?
The thing is though, (And here’s the age-old argument) it IS just a game. It’s not real. But even so...
So, here’s the question. Would you not play a certain because of the moral issues it raises?
Let’s look at this from two points of view.
For: 1) Games are just that, games, they’re not real and they never will be.
2) For nearly everyone who plays’s videogames, they are an escape. An escape, possibly, from some kind of trauma that’s happening to them at that time. An escape from anything really. Just somewhere to let off steam and unleash their anger and aggression.
3) Although this might sound a bit perverted, I enjoy doing things like that in games. You can do things that you would never be able to do in real life. Like breaking into a military base and dropping a bomb in there. Or, indeed, shooting a pregnant women. Of course I would never do anything so disgusting in real life because it’s sick, horrible and a stupid waste. But games are made so people can do things that they’ve never done before, and are likely never to do... ever.
Conclusion: It’s actually all right for things like this to be put into games. Everyone knows and understands the fact that games are games, real life is real life and there is a huge difference between the two. In all honesty, if developers were denied the freedom that they are given to put anything, within reason, into games then you’d find a lot of people getting frustrated and maybe ending up doing something stupid. As I said, they are an escape. If you deny someone something then they are going to want it more and more.
And now for the flip side of the coin.
Against: 1) It’s plain sick. Shooting a pregnant women, in effect killing two lives, is horrible. Some people out there do have difficulty understanding the difference between reality and games. It’s not their fault, some have brain disorders, some are Ortistic… it just happens and no one can be blamed for it. The fact is, however unlikely, someone COULD be influenced by it and could be driven to something stupid and regretful.
2) There’s going to be a whole lot of backlash when MSG2 gets released if it has this in it. Angry parents and Clergymen are going to be protesting mightily about the "Damage it might cause to our children’s minds" It would be a whole lot easier for Konami and Sony to take it out and not suffer the public rebuke they are going to face.
Overall Conclusion: On the whole I think it’s perfectly fine to have scenes like this in games. As long as it’s understood by the general public that it’s just a game, and that little Tommy isn’t going to go nick a gun and blow someone’s brains out. Parents have to understand that children aren’t as stupid and easily warped as they think. If a parent or indeed anyone has a concern about this kind of thing then they should have a little talk with their child and make sure they understand what’s what, and that doing things like that in real life would be thoughtless, wasteful, regrettable and daft.
So my answer to my own question. Would I not play a game because of the moral issues it raises? No, I know what’s what. What’s real and what’s not. And I understand that doing something like that is wrong. I’m just playing the game for fun and nothing more.
Your thoughts?
RBS
Everyone on the Earth seems to value morals and ethics higher than anything else. If you’re a moral person, then you’re a good person. But recently I found out that in Metal Gear Solid 2, there is a point where you have to shoot a pregnant women. In all fairness shooting anyone’s wrong, but a pregnant women? Whoever came up with that must have been sick... Possibly.
Morality has never been abundant in video games. Look at the Rainbow 6 games. Going around on Covert Ops surreptitiously killing people is hardly morally correct is it? The same goes for games like Cannon Fodder and Sudden Strike. But surely none of that’s as bad as killing a pregnant women, is it?
The thing is though, (And here’s the age-old argument) it IS just a game. It’s not real. But even so...
So, here’s the question. Would you not play a certain because of the moral issues it raises?
Let’s look at this from two points of view.
For: 1) Games are just that, games, they’re not real and they never will be.
2) For nearly everyone who plays’s videogames, they are an escape. An escape, possibly, from some kind of trauma that’s happening to them at that time. An escape from anything really. Just somewhere to let off steam and unleash their anger and aggression.
3) Although this might sound a bit perverted, I enjoy doing things like that in games. You can do things that you would never be able to do in real life. Like breaking into a military base and dropping a bomb in there. Or, indeed, shooting a pregnant women. Of course I would never do anything so disgusting in real life because it’s sick, horrible and a stupid waste. But games are made so people can do things that they’ve never done before, and are likely never to do... ever.
Conclusion: It’s actually all right for things like this to be put into games. Everyone knows and understands the fact that games are games, real life is real life and there is a huge difference between the two. In all honesty, if developers were denied the freedom that they are given to put anything, within reason, into games then you’d find a lot of people getting frustrated and maybe ending up doing something stupid. As I said, they are an escape. If you deny someone something then they are going to want it more and more.
And now for the flip side of the coin.
Against: 1) It’s plain sick. Shooting a pregnant women, in effect killing two lives, is horrible. Some people out there do have difficulty understanding the difference between reality and games. It’s not their fault, some have brain disorders, some are Ortistic… it just happens and no one can be blamed for it. The fact is, however unlikely, someone COULD be influenced by it and could be driven to something stupid and regretful.
2) There’s going to be a whole lot of backlash when MSG2 gets released if it has this in it. Angry parents and Clergymen are going to be protesting mightily about the "Damage it might cause to our children’s minds" It would be a whole lot easier for Konami and Sony to take it out and not suffer the public rebuke they are going to face.
Overall Conclusion: On the whole I think it’s perfectly fine to have scenes like this in games. As long as it’s understood by the general public that it’s just a game, and that little Tommy isn’t going to go nick a gun and blow someone’s brains out. Parents have to understand that children aren’t as stupid and easily warped as they think. If a parent or indeed anyone has a concern about this kind of thing then they should have a little talk with their child and make sure they understand what’s what, and that doing things like that in real life would be thoughtless, wasteful, regrettable and daft.
So my answer to my own question. Would I not play a game because of the moral issues it raises? No, I know what’s what. What’s real and what’s not. And I understand that doing something like that is wrong. I’m just playing the game for fun and nothing more.
Your thoughts?
RBS
Page:
DeltaJava wrote:
10? Blimey, you're beating the Notables!!
No, 8.
Thanks everyone!
10? Blimey, you're beating the Notables!!
No, 8.
Thanks everyone!
Guns don't kill, people kill, a gun is a tool like a spoon or a spanner.
Anyway, we could all learn a lot from South Park. There was an episode where Chef was complaining about the racist South Park flag of a Black man being hung by white men. It came down to a debate in the school with one side supporting the flag and one side against it. The main argument of the supporting side was that it was representing history and the main argument of the opposing side was that it was racist. It turned out that the children had seen the flag as a man being hung by four other men, rather than specifically noticing the colour of the man being hung and so they didn't see it as racist. They learned that regardless of what you look like the important thing is that you are a human being just like the rest of us and shouldn't be treated any differently if you are black or white. That goes for both positive and negative discrimination (as if there is such a thing as positive discrimination). The main problem is that people make an issue of something that shouldn't matter. Killing someone because they are black is bad but killing someone who was burgling your house who just happens to be black isn't racist. Infact killing someone in cold blood regardless of the fact they are black (say they were a shop assistant) is still not racist, though it is evil. Just because someone thinks something is racist, doesn't mean it is.
Anyway, we could all learn a lot from South Park. There was an episode where Chef was complaining about the racist South Park flag of a Black man being hung by white men. It came down to a debate in the school with one side supporting the flag and one side against it. The main argument of the supporting side was that it was representing history and the main argument of the opposing side was that it was racist. It turned out that the children had seen the flag as a man being hung by four other men, rather than specifically noticing the colour of the man being hung and so they didn't see it as racist. They learned that regardless of what you look like the important thing is that you are a human being just like the rest of us and shouldn't be treated any differently if you are black or white. That goes for both positive and negative discrimination (as if there is such a thing as positive discrimination). The main problem is that people make an issue of something that shouldn't matter. Killing someone because they are black is bad but killing someone who was burgling your house who just happens to be black isn't racist. Infact killing someone in cold blood regardless of the fact they are black (say they were a shop assistant) is still not racist, though it is evil. Just because someone thinks something is racist, doesn't mean it is.
Well done RBS. Deserved a GAD, for sure.
Me too, unless some drunk was the judge. Anyway, how many wins is that now? 10? Blimey, you're beating the Notables!!
Congratulations on your win RBS. Would have been surprised if this didn't win.
A wim-a-way...Eeeeeeoooooeeeeeooooo Eeeeeeeooooweeeeoooo
Goatboy wrote:
Dirty Space Hippie
>:)
Bah! Go peddle your nonce-sense to Phil Collins, the lions and the alligators in the jungle! ;-D
Dirty Space Hippie
>:)
Bah! Go peddle your nonce-sense to Phil Collins, the lions and the alligators in the jungle! ;-D
Meka_Dragon wrote:
Hmmm,
> not bad, but I think that the last paragraph of my post did the 'why
> only take the negative iinfluences' thing to a better silver space
> suits conclusion. ;-)
I won't dignify that space-hippy blurb with a response.
Dirty Space Hippie
>:)
Hmmm,
> not bad, but I think that the last paragraph of my post did the 'why
> only take the negative iinfluences' thing to a better silver space
> suits conclusion. ;-)
I won't dignify that space-hippy blurb with a response.
Dirty Space Hippie
>:)
Goatboy wrote:
> Damn I'm good at that sort of post.
Hmmm, not bad, but I think that the last paragraph of my post did the 'why only take the negative iinfluences' thing to a better silver space suits conclusion. ;-)
> Damn I'm good at that sort of post.
Hmmm, not bad, but I think that the last paragraph of my post did the 'why only take the negative iinfluences' thing to a better silver space suits conclusion. ;-)
Read that bit about Lionel Ritchie fans.
That's a comedy-genius moment, and it just plopped out.
That's a comedy-genius moment, and it just plopped out.
Page: