The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Always.
Except when I go into "auto-argue" and come out of my fugue to find a fully-formed post that is articulate and raises several points I didn't even realise I knew until they came out.
Except when I go into "auto-argue" and come out of my fugue to find a fully-formed post that is articulate and raises several points I didn't even realise I knew until they came out.
Goatboy wrote:
> Damn I'm good at that sort of post.
And modest, too! ;-)
> Damn I'm good at that sort of post.
And modest, too! ;-)
Damn I'm good at that sort of post.
Said it before and I'll say it again:
If someone is dumb enough to think a game can influence their behaviour and they think they should go out and imitate?
Why the hell do they never imitate Parappa the Rapper or Fifa 2000?
Why choose the violent ones to imitate?
Same with songs.
"The lyrics are influential"
Really?
So what does that say about Lionel Ritchie fans?
Do I have to look up every time I enter a room in case people are up there bopping away?
And how does one be "easy like Sunday morning?"
Why pick on violent games and/or rock music and/or movies?
Why not attack Disney for turning kids into mindless, sophorific dullards that all want to be like Elton John and Phil Collins and hang out with lions and alligators?
Someone just answer that question.
Why just focus on the negative aspects of influential things?
Why not the positive?
Why not make a game called "Hey, just relax and stop fearing everyone out there, tell someone close that you love them and mind your own goddamn business"
A game where the aim is to befreind someone of a different race/religion/class/disability and, here's a wacky concept, listen to what they have to say and respect that even if you disagree?
Influence and morality doesn't have to be in the negative every single time this is discussed.
What about people that were influenced by Timothy Leary, or John Lennon or Bill Hicks and spent their lifetimes trying to further their understanding of this planet, these people and ourselves?
Because that takes effort on your part, and it's much easier to point a finger at Sony/Nintendo/Eminem/Marylin Manson than it is to say "Wow, I don't know nearly as much as I thought I did! Maybe I'm wrong about this!"
Never happen though, because to blame something else takes the onus of you.
(You being the descriptive term, not at any one person)
If someone is dumb enough to think a game can influence their behaviour and they think they should go out and imitate?
Why the hell do they never imitate Parappa the Rapper or Fifa 2000?
Why choose the violent ones to imitate?
Same with songs.
"The lyrics are influential"
Really?
So what does that say about Lionel Ritchie fans?
Do I have to look up every time I enter a room in case people are up there bopping away?
And how does one be "easy like Sunday morning?"
Why pick on violent games and/or rock music and/or movies?
Why not attack Disney for turning kids into mindless, sophorific dullards that all want to be like Elton John and Phil Collins and hang out with lions and alligators?
Someone just answer that question.
Why just focus on the negative aspects of influential things?
Why not the positive?
Why not make a game called "Hey, just relax and stop fearing everyone out there, tell someone close that you love them and mind your own goddamn business"
A game where the aim is to befreind someone of a different race/religion/class/disability and, here's a wacky concept, listen to what they have to say and respect that even if you disagree?
Influence and morality doesn't have to be in the negative every single time this is discussed.
What about people that were influenced by Timothy Leary, or John Lennon or Bill Hicks and spent their lifetimes trying to further their understanding of this planet, these people and ourselves?
Because that takes effort on your part, and it's much easier to point a finger at Sony/Nintendo/Eminem/Marylin Manson than it is to say "Wow, I don't know nearly as much as I thought I did! Maybe I'm wrong about this!"
Never happen though, because to blame something else takes the onus of you.
(You being the descriptive term, not at any one person)
Meka_Dragon wrote:
> Surely if lil' Tommy sees someone get shot on a game (or on TV)
> steals a gun, and shoots someone it's the games fault, right?
The fact of lil Tommy is, if the gun was his dad's (more than likely) then it's the dad's fault for not looking after it properly, the likelyhood of a kid grabbing a gun and taking it into his school to shoot his friends is what actually happened, the thing is, if used properly games can influence you in good ways, your more sociable with your friends, more people come online and talk about them, it's a way of expression.
but back to the shooting, this kid in America that took his dad's gun shot 15 bullets, hitting 8 kids 3 in the head 5 body hits, the American army have been trained to hit 1 in 5 body hits, thats pretty impressive, but because his 'skills' were misused it should be treated like any other murder.
Kids aren't to blame really, games and films are rated for a reason, if your old enough to watc/play them you should e in a well enough mind to do so + the games manuals descibe this in great detail and don't take any responsability for the individuals who ruin everything for the rest of us.
> Surely if lil' Tommy sees someone get shot on a game (or on TV)
> steals a gun, and shoots someone it's the games fault, right?
The fact of lil Tommy is, if the gun was his dad's (more than likely) then it's the dad's fault for not looking after it properly, the likelyhood of a kid grabbing a gun and taking it into his school to shoot his friends is what actually happened, the thing is, if used properly games can influence you in good ways, your more sociable with your friends, more people come online and talk about them, it's a way of expression.
but back to the shooting, this kid in America that took his dad's gun shot 15 bullets, hitting 8 kids 3 in the head 5 body hits, the American army have been trained to hit 1 in 5 body hits, thats pretty impressive, but because his 'skills' were misused it should be treated like any other murder.
Kids aren't to blame really, games and films are rated for a reason, if your old enough to watc/play them you should e in a well enough mind to do so + the games manuals descibe this in great detail and don't take any responsability for the individuals who ruin everything for the rest of us.
The Game wrote:
> Okay... so maybe I did jump the gun, but you see how easy it is...
> if I thought that, then there is a good chance that lots of people
> thought that....
Then those people are wrong, and blinkered fools too. (No offence, Game!)
> I suppose there is a difference between killing a woman
> who is visibly pregnant and
Again, the woman in MGS2 isn't visibly pregnant. In fact, if not for the storyline which precedes the shootout, you'd never know.
I see all this as fulfilling part of Sony's promise of bringing more emotion to games. It's making you think about subjects and feel things that games haven't done before. Okay, it may not be the 'best' way of doing it, but it is doing it.
People are always quick to shout about how games influence kids, so this could be looked on as a *positive* influence. Hero shoots pregnant woman, hero feels bad... it's not simply promoting violence, it's showing the effects that violence has on the perpetrator.
That's another aspect that can - and is, in this case - being added to games - not just acts of mindless violence, but the consequences of that violence.
> Okay... so maybe I did jump the gun, but you see how easy it is...
> if I thought that, then there is a good chance that lots of people
> thought that....
Then those people are wrong, and blinkered fools too. (No offence, Game!)
> I suppose there is a difference between killing a woman
> who is visibly pregnant and
Again, the woman in MGS2 isn't visibly pregnant. In fact, if not for the storyline which precedes the shootout, you'd never know.
I see all this as fulfilling part of Sony's promise of bringing more emotion to games. It's making you think about subjects and feel things that games haven't done before. Okay, it may not be the 'best' way of doing it, but it is doing it.
People are always quick to shout about how games influence kids, so this could be looked on as a *positive* influence. Hero shoots pregnant woman, hero feels bad... it's not simply promoting violence, it's showing the effects that violence has on the perpetrator.
That's another aspect that can - and is, in this case - being added to games - not just acts of mindless violence, but the consequences of that violence.
Surely if lil' Tommy sees someone get shot on a game (or on TV) steals a gun, and shoots someone it's the games fault, right?
Not the fact that lil' Tommy could get hold of a gun?
Guns kill people, games don't. Though I suppose games on CD or DVD could be sharpened into razor like edges, and be used to sluit someones throat, but it wasn't designed for that.
And I suppose a truck load of cartridges could be dropped from a height onto someone, killing them instantly, but again, that's not the purpose of the games, is it.
Guns, however, are meant to be shot, and if you shoot a person, it may well kill them, or render them in incredible pain, especially if you shoot them in the testes.
The thing is, anyone that doesn't have the capability to understand that it's only a game is potentially dangerous anyway, and should be kept away from such things and fed only mush, as they probably couldn't use knives either.
It really isn't a difficult concept to understand, games aren't real, movies aren't real. You may play around at being HeMan as a child, but you neer really believed you were him, did you? Never jumped out of a window when you were playing Superman, did you? No you knew you'd get hurt. Give kids some credit. You were one once (and I know it was a long time ago for the likes of Wookiee ;-) ) think back, you weren't stupid. Anyone that was stupid, that did believe games were real, and it was okay to shoot people would have ended up hurting themselves or someone else before long with or without playing games.
Media, games TV, music, is just a scapegoat, invented by lawyers in order to try to get their clients off. When Tommy killed his teacher it was because Tommy has problems, not because Tommy played Metal Gear Solid, but if you can put the blame elsewhere then Tommy might not spend his whole life in prison, and Mr big-shot lawyer man has done a good job.
Remember the end of Scream 2? The kid said that he was going to blame it all on movies in order to get away with it. The sad thing is, it would still bloody work!
When I was a kid there were many films and TV shows set in the future, around 2001. In this future I saw the world was at peace, and everyone wore silver suits, and had funny stars tattooed on their faces. Funny how no one has been influenced by this? Why are we not wearing big silver suits? I saw it on TV, it has to happen!
Not the fact that lil' Tommy could get hold of a gun?
Guns kill people, games don't. Though I suppose games on CD or DVD could be sharpened into razor like edges, and be used to sluit someones throat, but it wasn't designed for that.
And I suppose a truck load of cartridges could be dropped from a height onto someone, killing them instantly, but again, that's not the purpose of the games, is it.
Guns, however, are meant to be shot, and if you shoot a person, it may well kill them, or render them in incredible pain, especially if you shoot them in the testes.
The thing is, anyone that doesn't have the capability to understand that it's only a game is potentially dangerous anyway, and should be kept away from such things and fed only mush, as they probably couldn't use knives either.
It really isn't a difficult concept to understand, games aren't real, movies aren't real. You may play around at being HeMan as a child, but you neer really believed you were him, did you? Never jumped out of a window when you were playing Superman, did you? No you knew you'd get hurt. Give kids some credit. You were one once (and I know it was a long time ago for the likes of Wookiee ;-) ) think back, you weren't stupid. Anyone that was stupid, that did believe games were real, and it was okay to shoot people would have ended up hurting themselves or someone else before long with or without playing games.
Media, games TV, music, is just a scapegoat, invented by lawyers in order to try to get their clients off. When Tommy killed his teacher it was because Tommy has problems, not because Tommy played Metal Gear Solid, but if you can put the blame elsewhere then Tommy might not spend his whole life in prison, and Mr big-shot lawyer man has done a good job.
Remember the end of Scream 2? The kid said that he was going to blame it all on movies in order to get away with it. The sad thing is, it would still bloody work!
When I was a kid there were many films and TV shows set in the future, around 2001. In this future I saw the world was at peace, and everyone wore silver suits, and had funny stars tattooed on their faces. Funny how no one has been influenced by this? Why are we not wearing big silver suits? I saw it on TV, it has to happen!
Okay... so maybe I did jump the gun, but you see how easy it is... if I thought that, then there is a good chance that lots of people thought that....
All in all I was wrong... and we still don't know if the baby was an alien or whatever... I suppose there is a difference between killing a woman who is visibly pregnant and harmless and a woman who wasn't pregnant but someone made it up afterwards to add to the storyline.
Anyway, enough differences for now... time to play golf.
Bye!
All in all I was wrong... and we still don't know if the baby was an alien or whatever... I suppose there is a difference between killing a woman who is visibly pregnant and harmless and a woman who wasn't pregnant but someone made it up afterwards to add to the storyline.
Anyway, enough differences for now... time to play golf.
Bye!
Wòókiee Møn§Ý€R wrote:
> RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Hey! I wasn't crusading! Just trying to
> make an
> interesting discussion!
That's why I wasn't
> pointing any fingers! It's just my opinion, it wasn't aimed at you
> specifically!
That's the point, you can't point fingers you're a Wookiee :-D
Alex, I totally agree.
> RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Hey! I wasn't crusading! Just trying to
> make an
> interesting discussion!
That's why I wasn't
> pointing any fingers! It's just my opinion, it wasn't aimed at you
> specifically!
That's the point, you can't point fingers you're a Wookiee :-D
Alex, I totally agree.
Your Honour wrote:
> But say there was a big pub brawl or something, a woman
> is just as capable of smashing a bottle over your head as a bloke
> is, so why can't you hit her?
I agree. I'm all for equality, so if she can hit me...
I'd never willingly hit a woman, but when it comes down to self-defence, everyone's fair game as far as I'm concerned. If it's me or them, I'd rather it was me!
> But say there was a big pub brawl or something, a woman
> is just as capable of smashing a bottle over your head as a bloke
> is, so why can't you hit her?
I agree. I'm all for equality, so if she can hit me...
I'd never willingly hit a woman, but when it comes down to self-defence, everyone's fair game as far as I'm concerned. If it's me or them, I'd rather it was me!
Page: