The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
If a major games company, or for that matter, any games company were to develop a game with a storyline that closely resembled the current atrocity - witnessed all over the world - in the United States, surely it would be too far.
But where is the line? Where does it stop being pretend and where des it 'get sick'?
My view on games is that they don't have to be violent. Games like Zelda, Mario, Crash, Pokémon and Spyro The Dragon, have all seen reasonable success in the market none of which are violet, none of which are sinister or out of sorts. I don't believe that games should screen wanton or gratuitous violence, because it does the game no more favours that a bloodless 'killing' in my book. However, because of the demands of the consumer and the 'light take' on the violence in video games by most gamers, more and more blood and killing is making it into games today.
But a pretend man, shooting another pretend man differs greatly to mimicing an international tragedy. I believe that any game that passes the history of suffering and death off as entertainment should be banned. In the light of what has happened, should a game be release, survival horrors would take the back seat in the court room while the respective game got a roasting from everyone.
I wouldn't imagine anyone would be able to draw a fine enough line to cover all games and all scenarios, but one thing is for sure, you can tell what games should be and what games shouldn't, purely by playing them. I don't tend to play 'gory games' anyway, but should a good one come a long I might try it. However, if it were a game that shows scenes of explicit sexual nature or gratuitous violence I doubt i'd play it for any longer than it would take me to wipe the look of disgust off my face.
I believe too far is making entertainment out of other's real-life misfortunes. War games are bad enough... and if you were to make a game, back when the soldiers of old were fighing in Normandy or on the Front Line, you'd be shot on the spot for meking entertainment out of others that have fought and died fo their country.
A big issue is that so many different things have taken place... different types of war, sexual assault, massacres, crusades, bombings, suicide killings, rascism attacks. They all seem to be violence driven, but few games to date aren't violent. Then of course their are movies - Saving Private Ryan was rated one of the best films of its year, but when Rare took the mickey out of it in CBFD some people said it was a shame that Rare, although very talented and comical, had to 'play' on the lives of US soldiers to provide entertainment... maybe it was because SPR was true, and didn't take the mick in any way?
You see, it's so hard to draw the line between yes and no... movies seem to get away with murder, and then games are blamed for the killings in US high schools!
It seems to me that there are loads of different opinions... people are in different modes at different times in different places with different views on life. What is acceptable to one might be an atrocity to another. Nintendo tend to release 'kiddie' games to be on the safe side, and as I said earlier, and as shown by the quality of their games, having 'kiddie' games doesn't mean they lessen in quality.
So, Ladies, Gentlemen, Internet Addicts and Meka, I ask you:
"How Far Is Too Far?!"
Thanks for scrolling to the end,
Game
But where is the line? Where does it stop being pretend and where des it 'get sick'?
My view on games is that they don't have to be violent. Games like Zelda, Mario, Crash, Pokémon and Spyro The Dragon, have all seen reasonable success in the market none of which are violet, none of which are sinister or out of sorts. I don't believe that games should screen wanton or gratuitous violence, because it does the game no more favours that a bloodless 'killing' in my book. However, because of the demands of the consumer and the 'light take' on the violence in video games by most gamers, more and more blood and killing is making it into games today.
But a pretend man, shooting another pretend man differs greatly to mimicing an international tragedy. I believe that any game that passes the history of suffering and death off as entertainment should be banned. In the light of what has happened, should a game be release, survival horrors would take the back seat in the court room while the respective game got a roasting from everyone.
I wouldn't imagine anyone would be able to draw a fine enough line to cover all games and all scenarios, but one thing is for sure, you can tell what games should be and what games shouldn't, purely by playing them. I don't tend to play 'gory games' anyway, but should a good one come a long I might try it. However, if it were a game that shows scenes of explicit sexual nature or gratuitous violence I doubt i'd play it for any longer than it would take me to wipe the look of disgust off my face.
I believe too far is making entertainment out of other's real-life misfortunes. War games are bad enough... and if you were to make a game, back when the soldiers of old were fighing in Normandy or on the Front Line, you'd be shot on the spot for meking entertainment out of others that have fought and died fo their country.
A big issue is that so many different things have taken place... different types of war, sexual assault, massacres, crusades, bombings, suicide killings, rascism attacks. They all seem to be violence driven, but few games to date aren't violent. Then of course their are movies - Saving Private Ryan was rated one of the best films of its year, but when Rare took the mickey out of it in CBFD some people said it was a shame that Rare, although very talented and comical, had to 'play' on the lives of US soldiers to provide entertainment... maybe it was because SPR was true, and didn't take the mick in any way?
You see, it's so hard to draw the line between yes and no... movies seem to get away with murder, and then games are blamed for the killings in US high schools!
It seems to me that there are loads of different opinions... people are in different modes at different times in different places with different views on life. What is acceptable to one might be an atrocity to another. Nintendo tend to release 'kiddie' games to be on the safe side, and as I said earlier, and as shown by the quality of their games, having 'kiddie' games doesn't mean they lessen in quality.
So, Ladies, Gentlemen, Internet Addicts and Meka, I ask you:
"How Far Is Too Far?!"
Thanks for scrolling to the end,
Game
Page:
There are a lot of things that could be said on this topic, how far is too far? Well, I don't know but I think there's a lot more to it than that. Have you ever played Swat 3, Rainbow 6 or another squad based anti-terrorist game? You play them as it's good entertainment rescuing hostages and arresting or otherwise dealing with terrorists and it's the sort of thing that can make a good computer game. say in one mission you were defusing bombs and dealing with terrorists in an airport this is just standard gameplay for the game. Now say that just before the game is released there are hundreds of people killed in a terrorist raid on an airport, would this have any effect on people's views of the game? I would say that they may think it was inconsiderate, uncaring and sick that the game is trying to make money out of a terrible thing. The problem is that the game had this level before the attack and had the attack not taken place there would have been no problem. So the question is would the game actually be sick for using this level? Well they could perhaps have delayed and taken the level out of the game but if production was completed and the game was just being distributed then they may not be able to afford to use this option, so they couldn't really be blamed. Even if they did have the opportunity to remove the level should they do it just because of the incident? Such disasters do happen and this sort of thing is often the subject of a game or film, most of the time it is to rescue the people and prevent it but would it be sick if you failed the mission and the place was destroyed, even if you didn't see it?
There are some things that would obviously be too far, such as "young mass murderer" which sets you either against a child who has gotten a gun and attacked their school or worse as the child. The question is, is it going to far to have wars in a game? Shogun: Total War, for example, puts you in control of a faction in the battle to rule Japan. Real people died in such a conflict but does this rule it out as a topic for games or films? No, so why not? Well, perhaps it is because it is like historical re-enactment societies, they respect that real people died in these battles but they remember them and learn the lessons of them by re-enacting them. Films about disasters or wars often try to give a message that war isn't good or fun and show the true horrors, even if they do not give you an actual idea of just how bad it was they tend to give you a reasonable one. What about games though, they often give you distance, you move your men around some die some don't and whether you win or lose the battle all you have to do is replace any losses. You are simply having people represented by numbers and replacing them as if they weren't real people. The important thing, perhaps, is that they are not real people. Everyone knows that the games characters are not real and when they die they can easily come back. If people didn't know this, would people really play games like GTA which allow you to kill innocents for points? The fact is that when Mario jumps on a goomba who is flattened and then disappears in a puff of smoke people will know that no one was really harmed, the goomba wasn't real and that he will respawn when they restart the level so nothing is considered to be wrong with it. If there was such a thing as a goomba do you think they would protest to being able to kill fake ones on a computer screen? Perhaps they would protest if they were always seen as bad guys to be defeated by Mario they would be annoyed about racism but if there were games where goombas killed goombas it would be just the same as humans killing humans. Infact if we were goombas it would be goombas killing Mario and noone would mind. I've gotten a little off track perhaps so I'll try and get back to the point. Which is that games don't represent real things and this is the reason why things that show violence or other material for adults then they get ratings to avoid children buying them. If a kid who is young sees this they may get the wrong idea but kids become smart and understand real things when quite young. If a twelve year old gets to play a 15 rated game chances are that they will understand that it isn't real. An 18 rated game may upset them for being too scary and gory but that's why they aren't sold to people under the age of 18. The ratings may be too high for the average person but there is no such thing as an average person and that is why they exist, because if a younger person get's their hands on a game that they shouldn't then it's quite possible they will be too young to understand the content. The ratings might be extreme (at 16 you can have sex but you can't watch it till you're 18) but they at least are safe.
Die Hard is a film in which one man takes on a whole group of terrorists on his own and eventually releases hostages in the end. He is a "hero" since he single handedly kills the bad guys and frees the good guys. Now these terrorists, if they were real they would have families and such who would grieve for them but their deaths are in defence of the good of others and the hero doesn't kill anyone who he doesn't have to, he even tries to rescue the bad guy big boss from death even though the bad guy tried to kill him. This is the sort of thing people would like to be able to do, they wouldn't like to be in such a situation but they'd like to be able to rescue the hostages and do a good thing. So this is the sort of thing that becomes entertainment, no real terrorists, no real hostages but the entertainment of disbelief that allows you to feel like part of the action whether you are just watching or actually interacting. This is why games show such situations, not because they are are exploiting terrible things (because developers are human too) but because they allow people to feel good about helping do good and prevent disasters. Everyone would like to be able to prevent a disaster, it's something you could imagine doing and it's the reason that fire fighters and super heroes are the people that children admire. So games just take this and make it into a game for the enjoyment of players. Be it fighting alien hordes or freeing prisoners it's the doing good that makes us feel good.
Then there are the other type of games. Where you are fighting against Humans perhaps either as another Human with more nefarious or selfish purposes or as an alien or some such who has their own reasons as well. For example Aliens versus Predator. You can be the Marine and try to fight off aliens, a couple of predators and so the usual good guy things, though you are generally too late to save many people you don't get to see a corpse and you are saving others by stoping the spread of aliens. Then you can be the Alien, very different from the Marine in one sense but remarkably similar in another. Firstly you can find civilians who may even be unarmed (though generally aren't) and bite their heads off or just hack them to pieces. The civilians become nothing more than health pickups being far too non resistant to do anything to you, so is this perhaps sick? Of course from another point of view, these people have imprisoned your kind and are infact just as big a threat to your race as you are to them. Essentially you end up doing what the Marine is, never seeing a fellow alien and always fighting the "evil" Marines to protect your people. Every story has two sides as they say. Of course this one has three, the Predator, and his story is pretty much the same. Appearing out of thin air and stalking his "prey" the feeble humans are cut to shreds before his might and technology. He roams through their bases, killing these innocent Humans and even dealing with poor captive Aliens along the way. Of course, from his point of view he has good reason for it all. The Humans have captured his friend so they have to be removed before he can rescue this friend. Then of course there are the Aliens, why kill them? Well the Aliens and Predators are long enemies and allowing them to get extra power would not be acceptable and of course the Aliens are trying to kill him after all. Not that the Predator is necessarily Male mind you, but let's not go into that. The point is, is this any different from the usual Humans vs Humans setup, or Humans vs Aliens? Even though you are an Alien or Predator you still have good reason to kill the Humans and it is in a battle situation. The main thing is that the player will always be aware that they are Human themselves but will also be seing things from the Predator perspective. The Humans may be the bad guys but this is not different from the usual Human against Human setup so in the end it is just the same as any other game.
That still leaves games where you are a bad guy. Well, generally this type of game is either comedy or you are fighting bad guys who are worse than yourself. For example in Hitman you are a hired killer, but you are killing druglords, gangsters and other major criminals so innocents are rarely killed and if they are you are penalised. Though in the end the Hitman is still a good guy really since he is merely being used and doesn't kill any good guys, infact he rescues one or two. Another example, perhaps a better one, is GTA. You are a criminal working with criminals to commit crimes. your main opponent is the police and in the sequel other gangs. The game gives you complete freedom to kill everyone and you are even given points for killing innocents even though it brings the wrath of the police. You can then proceed to commit more crimes and even attack the police until you get rid of them, die or are arrested. Of course if you die you are immediately returned to the nearest hospital as long as you have lives left, this allows you to go on more killing sprees or whatever until you complete the level, quit or run out of lives at which point you can start again. If you are arrested, it could be said to be worse since you serve absolutely no sentence and are released immediately from the nearest police station with your criminal record practically being a score sheet and with only your weapons and half your score multiplier taken away. Worse even than that perhaps is if you have a get out of jail free card, since you suffer no penalties at all. The thing is that everyone knows it's not real, you know you aren't killing innocent people or you wouldn't do it. There are no consequences but the player should be old enough (18 or over) to know that real crime would have consequences. Another excuse would be that the game is done with a lot of comedy in it. The criminals tend to be stereotypes and many jokes are made during missions and whenever else during the game. Everything is done in the name of fun and as long as the player understands that it isn't real then there really is no harm to be done.
The real question, how far is too far? Doesn't have an all encompassing answer. Some things are obviously a bit too far such as realistic violence towards or from children. Most of the time, however, it is merely a matter of your own opinion and whatever is going on at the time. If we are not willing to allow anything to be referred to for fear of being offensive then much of our entertainment would have to go. Comedy shows could not make fun of politicians or anything else that a person could take offense to which would severely limit comedy. Of course it wouldn't wipe out all comedy, styles which make fun of no one (with the possible exception of the comedians) do exist and these could carry on fine. Still, many Simpsons episodes could be counted as offensive to someone and they could have to be stopped. The main thing is that it's how people view things. People know what is just joking, what is merely entertainment and what is real from what is not. So we can do things that make fun of what might normally be called a serious issue and people will realise that it is not undermining the issue's significance so this will be accepted. There is a boundary, but people generally know where it is. A person could cross it inadvertently but unless they really are a bad person they will not mean to offend and will be sorry for their actions. As long as we stay forgiving and try to respect the boundaries we should be able to avoid going too far.
There are some things that would obviously be too far, such as "young mass murderer" which sets you either against a child who has gotten a gun and attacked their school or worse as the child. The question is, is it going to far to have wars in a game? Shogun: Total War, for example, puts you in control of a faction in the battle to rule Japan. Real people died in such a conflict but does this rule it out as a topic for games or films? No, so why not? Well, perhaps it is because it is like historical re-enactment societies, they respect that real people died in these battles but they remember them and learn the lessons of them by re-enacting them. Films about disasters or wars often try to give a message that war isn't good or fun and show the true horrors, even if they do not give you an actual idea of just how bad it was they tend to give you a reasonable one. What about games though, they often give you distance, you move your men around some die some don't and whether you win or lose the battle all you have to do is replace any losses. You are simply having people represented by numbers and replacing them as if they weren't real people. The important thing, perhaps, is that they are not real people. Everyone knows that the games characters are not real and when they die they can easily come back. If people didn't know this, would people really play games like GTA which allow you to kill innocents for points? The fact is that when Mario jumps on a goomba who is flattened and then disappears in a puff of smoke people will know that no one was really harmed, the goomba wasn't real and that he will respawn when they restart the level so nothing is considered to be wrong with it. If there was such a thing as a goomba do you think they would protest to being able to kill fake ones on a computer screen? Perhaps they would protest if they were always seen as bad guys to be defeated by Mario they would be annoyed about racism but if there were games where goombas killed goombas it would be just the same as humans killing humans. Infact if we were goombas it would be goombas killing Mario and noone would mind. I've gotten a little off track perhaps so I'll try and get back to the point. Which is that games don't represent real things and this is the reason why things that show violence or other material for adults then they get ratings to avoid children buying them. If a kid who is young sees this they may get the wrong idea but kids become smart and understand real things when quite young. If a twelve year old gets to play a 15 rated game chances are that they will understand that it isn't real. An 18 rated game may upset them for being too scary and gory but that's why they aren't sold to people under the age of 18. The ratings may be too high for the average person but there is no such thing as an average person and that is why they exist, because if a younger person get's their hands on a game that they shouldn't then it's quite possible they will be too young to understand the content. The ratings might be extreme (at 16 you can have sex but you can't watch it till you're 18) but they at least are safe.
Die Hard is a film in which one man takes on a whole group of terrorists on his own and eventually releases hostages in the end. He is a "hero" since he single handedly kills the bad guys and frees the good guys. Now these terrorists, if they were real they would have families and such who would grieve for them but their deaths are in defence of the good of others and the hero doesn't kill anyone who he doesn't have to, he even tries to rescue the bad guy big boss from death even though the bad guy tried to kill him. This is the sort of thing people would like to be able to do, they wouldn't like to be in such a situation but they'd like to be able to rescue the hostages and do a good thing. So this is the sort of thing that becomes entertainment, no real terrorists, no real hostages but the entertainment of disbelief that allows you to feel like part of the action whether you are just watching or actually interacting. This is why games show such situations, not because they are are exploiting terrible things (because developers are human too) but because they allow people to feel good about helping do good and prevent disasters. Everyone would like to be able to prevent a disaster, it's something you could imagine doing and it's the reason that fire fighters and super heroes are the people that children admire. So games just take this and make it into a game for the enjoyment of players. Be it fighting alien hordes or freeing prisoners it's the doing good that makes us feel good.
Then there are the other type of games. Where you are fighting against Humans perhaps either as another Human with more nefarious or selfish purposes or as an alien or some such who has their own reasons as well. For example Aliens versus Predator. You can be the Marine and try to fight off aliens, a couple of predators and so the usual good guy things, though you are generally too late to save many people you don't get to see a corpse and you are saving others by stoping the spread of aliens. Then you can be the Alien, very different from the Marine in one sense but remarkably similar in another. Firstly you can find civilians who may even be unarmed (though generally aren't) and bite their heads off or just hack them to pieces. The civilians become nothing more than health pickups being far too non resistant to do anything to you, so is this perhaps sick? Of course from another point of view, these people have imprisoned your kind and are infact just as big a threat to your race as you are to them. Essentially you end up doing what the Marine is, never seeing a fellow alien and always fighting the "evil" Marines to protect your people. Every story has two sides as they say. Of course this one has three, the Predator, and his story is pretty much the same. Appearing out of thin air and stalking his "prey" the feeble humans are cut to shreds before his might and technology. He roams through their bases, killing these innocent Humans and even dealing with poor captive Aliens along the way. Of course, from his point of view he has good reason for it all. The Humans have captured his friend so they have to be removed before he can rescue this friend. Then of course there are the Aliens, why kill them? Well the Aliens and Predators are long enemies and allowing them to get extra power would not be acceptable and of course the Aliens are trying to kill him after all. Not that the Predator is necessarily Male mind you, but let's not go into that. The point is, is this any different from the usual Humans vs Humans setup, or Humans vs Aliens? Even though you are an Alien or Predator you still have good reason to kill the Humans and it is in a battle situation. The main thing is that the player will always be aware that they are Human themselves but will also be seing things from the Predator perspective. The Humans may be the bad guys but this is not different from the usual Human against Human setup so in the end it is just the same as any other game.
That still leaves games where you are a bad guy. Well, generally this type of game is either comedy or you are fighting bad guys who are worse than yourself. For example in Hitman you are a hired killer, but you are killing druglords, gangsters and other major criminals so innocents are rarely killed and if they are you are penalised. Though in the end the Hitman is still a good guy really since he is merely being used and doesn't kill any good guys, infact he rescues one or two. Another example, perhaps a better one, is GTA. You are a criminal working with criminals to commit crimes. your main opponent is the police and in the sequel other gangs. The game gives you complete freedom to kill everyone and you are even given points for killing innocents even though it brings the wrath of the police. You can then proceed to commit more crimes and even attack the police until you get rid of them, die or are arrested. Of course if you die you are immediately returned to the nearest hospital as long as you have lives left, this allows you to go on more killing sprees or whatever until you complete the level, quit or run out of lives at which point you can start again. If you are arrested, it could be said to be worse since you serve absolutely no sentence and are released immediately from the nearest police station with your criminal record practically being a score sheet and with only your weapons and half your score multiplier taken away. Worse even than that perhaps is if you have a get out of jail free card, since you suffer no penalties at all. The thing is that everyone knows it's not real, you know you aren't killing innocent people or you wouldn't do it. There are no consequences but the player should be old enough (18 or over) to know that real crime would have consequences. Another excuse would be that the game is done with a lot of comedy in it. The criminals tend to be stereotypes and many jokes are made during missions and whenever else during the game. Everything is done in the name of fun and as long as the player understands that it isn't real then there really is no harm to be done.
The real question, how far is too far? Doesn't have an all encompassing answer. Some things are obviously a bit too far such as realistic violence towards or from children. Most of the time, however, it is merely a matter of your own opinion and whatever is going on at the time. If we are not willing to allow anything to be referred to for fear of being offensive then much of our entertainment would have to go. Comedy shows could not make fun of politicians or anything else that a person could take offense to which would severely limit comedy. Of course it wouldn't wipe out all comedy, styles which make fun of no one (with the possible exception of the comedians) do exist and these could carry on fine. Still, many Simpsons episodes could be counted as offensive to someone and they could have to be stopped. The main thing is that it's how people view things. People know what is just joking, what is merely entertainment and what is real from what is not. So we can do things that make fun of what might normally be called a serious issue and people will realise that it is not undermining the issue's significance so this will be accepted. There is a boundary, but people generally know where it is. A person could cross it inadvertently but unless they really are a bad person they will not mean to offend and will be sorry for their actions. As long as we stay forgiving and try to respect the boundaries we should be able to avoid going too far.
You know, in Germany there are VERY strict laws on gaming. One of the reasons Europe gets delays infact.
I shall give you some examples:
1) If you are killing people in games, their blood must be green to indicate zombies.
2) If you are killing animals, they must be replaced with robots (Turok: Robot Hunter.... in the german version dinos were actually robots!)
3) Anything "excessive" is banned- so almost all Duke Nuken style games!
I shall give you some examples:
1) If you are killing people in games, their blood must be green to indicate zombies.
2) If you are killing animals, they must be replaced with robots (Turok: Robot Hunter.... in the german version dinos were actually robots!)
3) Anything "excessive" is banned- so almost all Duke Nuken style games!
There we are then, define childish now.
I really don't want to play any sort of violent game. I don't really want to play any game... but over the past few hours I've learnt to respect life a bit more, and just the thought of taking it is upsetting me. If it lasts or not, I don't know. I'm kinda glad I'm taking the childish Nintendo route now, though.
i dont really go for games like resident evil and that,i only have 1 and thats dino crises.some games are getting a bit twisted and have definetly changed a lot since the days of the nes and co.im still wondering how conker changed so much in such a short time.i think game violence and gore are ok but as long as its in good portions. like metal gear solid they could have really bad stuff in their but all there is,is a spot of blood and even that might be cleaned up.
good post game
If a major games company, or for that matter, any games company were to develop a game with a storyline that closely resembled the current atrocity - witnessed all over the world - in the United States, surely it would be too far.
But where is the line? Where does it stop being pretend and where des it 'get sick'?
My view on games is that they don't have to be violent. Games like Zelda, Mario, Crash, Pokémon and Spyro The Dragon, have all seen reasonable success in the market none of which are violet, none of which are sinister or out of sorts. I don't believe that games should screen wanton or gratuitous violence, because it does the game no more favours that a bloodless 'killing' in my book. However, because of the demands of the consumer and the 'light take' on the violence in video games by most gamers, more and more blood and killing is making it into games today.
But a pretend man, shooting another pretend man differs greatly to mimicing an international tragedy. I believe that any game that passes the history of suffering and death off as entertainment should be banned. In the light of what has happened, should a game be release, survival horrors would take the back seat in the court room while the respective game got a roasting from everyone.
I wouldn't imagine anyone would be able to draw a fine enough line to cover all games and all scenarios, but one thing is for sure, you can tell what games should be and what games shouldn't, purely by playing them. I don't tend to play 'gory games' anyway, but should a good one come a long I might try it. However, if it were a game that shows scenes of explicit sexual nature or gratuitous violence I doubt i'd play it for any longer than it would take me to wipe the look of disgust off my face.
I believe too far is making entertainment out of other's real-life misfortunes. War games are bad enough... and if you were to make a game, back when the soldiers of old were fighing in Normandy or on the Front Line, you'd be shot on the spot for meking entertainment out of others that have fought and died fo their country.
A big issue is that so many different things have taken place... different types of war, sexual assault, massacres, crusades, bombings, suicide killings, rascism attacks. They all seem to be violence driven, but few games to date aren't violent. Then of course their are movies - Saving Private Ryan was rated one of the best films of its year, but when Rare took the mickey out of it in CBFD some people said it was a shame that Rare, although very talented and comical, had to 'play' on the lives of US soldiers to provide entertainment... maybe it was because SPR was true, and didn't take the mick in any way?
You see, it's so hard to draw the line between yes and no... movies seem to get away with murder, and then games are blamed for the killings in US high schools!
It seems to me that there are loads of different opinions... people are in different modes at different times in different places with different views on life. What is acceptable to one might be an atrocity to another. Nintendo tend to release 'kiddie' games to be on the safe side, and as I said earlier, and as shown by the quality of their games, having 'kiddie' games doesn't mean they lessen in quality.
So, Ladies, Gentlemen, Internet Addicts and Meka, I ask you:
"How Far Is Too Far?!"
Thanks for scrolling to the end,
Game
But where is the line? Where does it stop being pretend and where des it 'get sick'?
My view on games is that they don't have to be violent. Games like Zelda, Mario, Crash, Pokémon and Spyro The Dragon, have all seen reasonable success in the market none of which are violet, none of which are sinister or out of sorts. I don't believe that games should screen wanton or gratuitous violence, because it does the game no more favours that a bloodless 'killing' in my book. However, because of the demands of the consumer and the 'light take' on the violence in video games by most gamers, more and more blood and killing is making it into games today.
But a pretend man, shooting another pretend man differs greatly to mimicing an international tragedy. I believe that any game that passes the history of suffering and death off as entertainment should be banned. In the light of what has happened, should a game be release, survival horrors would take the back seat in the court room while the respective game got a roasting from everyone.
I wouldn't imagine anyone would be able to draw a fine enough line to cover all games and all scenarios, but one thing is for sure, you can tell what games should be and what games shouldn't, purely by playing them. I don't tend to play 'gory games' anyway, but should a good one come a long I might try it. However, if it were a game that shows scenes of explicit sexual nature or gratuitous violence I doubt i'd play it for any longer than it would take me to wipe the look of disgust off my face.
I believe too far is making entertainment out of other's real-life misfortunes. War games are bad enough... and if you were to make a game, back when the soldiers of old were fighing in Normandy or on the Front Line, you'd be shot on the spot for meking entertainment out of others that have fought and died fo their country.
A big issue is that so many different things have taken place... different types of war, sexual assault, massacres, crusades, bombings, suicide killings, rascism attacks. They all seem to be violence driven, but few games to date aren't violent. Then of course their are movies - Saving Private Ryan was rated one of the best films of its year, but when Rare took the mickey out of it in CBFD some people said it was a shame that Rare, although very talented and comical, had to 'play' on the lives of US soldiers to provide entertainment... maybe it was because SPR was true, and didn't take the mick in any way?
You see, it's so hard to draw the line between yes and no... movies seem to get away with murder, and then games are blamed for the killings in US high schools!
It seems to me that there are loads of different opinions... people are in different modes at different times in different places with different views on life. What is acceptable to one might be an atrocity to another. Nintendo tend to release 'kiddie' games to be on the safe side, and as I said earlier, and as shown by the quality of their games, having 'kiddie' games doesn't mean they lessen in quality.
So, Ladies, Gentlemen, Internet Addicts and Meka, I ask you:
"How Far Is Too Far?!"
Thanks for scrolling to the end,
Game
Page: