The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I don't know whether you have heard but a game has been made by a Dutch company that simulates the life of a football hooligan.
Basically in the game for the PC you will play a football hooligan. You begin riots at matches ranging from pre-season to European cup games. As well as this it involves the aspect of gang loyalty which you get by carrying out looting and drinking before a match.
The game as you won't be suprised to hear might be banned.
I've been thinking about this and at first agreed with them banning this however later changed my mind.
In a hooligan game the games developers could be said to be promoting hooliganism that's fair enough and hooliganism is frowned upon by the majority of society. We consider it a crime and something that ruins the wonderful sport of football. But surely if they are going to ban this it is ridiculous.
Anyone played Grand Theft Auto? Those who have well answer me this what's worse in a hooligan game than in Grand Theft Auto. Lets compare them shall we? In Grand Theft Auto we kill people and steal cars however in the hooligan game we only cause trouble.
I'd say Grand Theft Auto seems alot worse in content in this game then in this Hooligan game. On the other hand even Carmageddon, Quake, Doom and Duke Nukem should be banned if this Hooligan game is bad surely. And in some countries games like Duke Nukem have been banned. In Brazil they have banned it after some stressed and slightly disturbed 24 year old got some guns from the Duke Nukem game and went on a rampage mimiking the game in every way.
But come to think of it why should any game be banned? Duke Nukem is a game where you kill aliens that are taking over the world we have a good vs bad scenario. And in Grand Theft Auto it is incredibly fun to run over people as they are NOT REAL. Most of us understand the differences between right and wrong and are happy to kill people in computer games. If we didn't we would all be going on rampages every day wouldn't we? And just because one person is a bit disturbed and crazy doesn't mean we all have to be punished by banning a game.
I don't really care about the theme of games. All I know is that if it's made well and fun to play I WILL play it without a question of thought. I don't feel sorry for the people I bomb in Red Alert 2 because I know it's not real, it's a fantasy and the people I'm killing don't have feelings and are just made up of several pixels. If this hooligan game is lots of fun I'm going to play it. I'm not going to mimic it, I just want to have some fun!
Over the course of gaming history people have been critising gaming, blaming it for horrible acts. In the Columbine school killings they blamed Doom. And if it's just the one person it has influenced I can't say Doom is to blame and I can't say that if he hadn't played it he wouldn't have done what he did.
People that do wrong don't do it because of games, they do it because of other factors. They are in a state where they can do it and need medical help. Games cannot be blamed. Most of us understand right and wrong and fun and reality.
So how far can games developers go? I think they can go as far as they want. I'm always for new types of games. I don't want to continuously play the aliens vs humans scenario with lots of guns to stop it. I need a change every now and again. However I'd draw the line at games like Postal where I hear you could kill CHILDREN who would scream in pain. That's not my idea of fun that's just wrong and clearly if you can make a game where children are being killed you are messed up in the head yourself.
Thanks for reading.
Basically in the game for the PC you will play a football hooligan. You begin riots at matches ranging from pre-season to European cup games. As well as this it involves the aspect of gang loyalty which you get by carrying out looting and drinking before a match.
The game as you won't be suprised to hear might be banned.
I've been thinking about this and at first agreed with them banning this however later changed my mind.
In a hooligan game the games developers could be said to be promoting hooliganism that's fair enough and hooliganism is frowned upon by the majority of society. We consider it a crime and something that ruins the wonderful sport of football. But surely if they are going to ban this it is ridiculous.
Anyone played Grand Theft Auto? Those who have well answer me this what's worse in a hooligan game than in Grand Theft Auto. Lets compare them shall we? In Grand Theft Auto we kill people and steal cars however in the hooligan game we only cause trouble.
I'd say Grand Theft Auto seems alot worse in content in this game then in this Hooligan game. On the other hand even Carmageddon, Quake, Doom and Duke Nukem should be banned if this Hooligan game is bad surely. And in some countries games like Duke Nukem have been banned. In Brazil they have banned it after some stressed and slightly disturbed 24 year old got some guns from the Duke Nukem game and went on a rampage mimiking the game in every way.
But come to think of it why should any game be banned? Duke Nukem is a game where you kill aliens that are taking over the world we have a good vs bad scenario. And in Grand Theft Auto it is incredibly fun to run over people as they are NOT REAL. Most of us understand the differences between right and wrong and are happy to kill people in computer games. If we didn't we would all be going on rampages every day wouldn't we? And just because one person is a bit disturbed and crazy doesn't mean we all have to be punished by banning a game.
I don't really care about the theme of games. All I know is that if it's made well and fun to play I WILL play it without a question of thought. I don't feel sorry for the people I bomb in Red Alert 2 because I know it's not real, it's a fantasy and the people I'm killing don't have feelings and are just made up of several pixels. If this hooligan game is lots of fun I'm going to play it. I'm not going to mimic it, I just want to have some fun!
Over the course of gaming history people have been critising gaming, blaming it for horrible acts. In the Columbine school killings they blamed Doom. And if it's just the one person it has influenced I can't say Doom is to blame and I can't say that if he hadn't played it he wouldn't have done what he did.
People that do wrong don't do it because of games, they do it because of other factors. They are in a state where they can do it and need medical help. Games cannot be blamed. Most of us understand right and wrong and fun and reality.
So how far can games developers go? I think they can go as far as they want. I'm always for new types of games. I don't want to continuously play the aliens vs humans scenario with lots of guns to stop it. I need a change every now and again. However I'd draw the line at games like Postal where I hear you could kill CHILDREN who would scream in pain. That's not my idea of fun that's just wrong and clearly if you can make a game where children are being killed you are messed up in the head yourself.
Thanks for reading.
There is a sort of difference between Hooligans and your average shoot em up.
Its down to moral really.
Normally with shooting games, you have a job to do or it's a case of kill or be killed.
Hooligans, on the other hand, simply go around and cause trouble for the sake of it.
Also, people rarely get hold of a gun and this sort of shooting doesn't occur in our lives while hooliganism is a real problem in our society.
Personally, I think that the media are making a load of fuss about nothing and the company are only doing it to get attention.
Now to put a bit in about how great cartoony games are...
Imagine a game where immagrants are trying to get into your country and you sit in a complex tower and as they helplessly run towards the exit, you shoot their heads off with Sniper rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns and blow them into pieces and watch them explode into pools of blood.
With realistic graphics and representations of real people, this game would be horribly sick.
In Conkers Bad Fur Day, the people are exchanged for silly characters and made comical, and a horrible disgusting scene suddenly becomes a fun, colourful enjoyable game.
It becomes like a sport. Team A do the running and hiding from the shooters while Team B try to blow them away.
This is one of many examples why Conkers bad Fur Day was such a great game.
It allowed games and morals that would be sick in a realistic game, but can be humerous behind the characteristics of strange and wonderful creatures!
Its down to moral really.
Normally with shooting games, you have a job to do or it's a case of kill or be killed.
Hooligans, on the other hand, simply go around and cause trouble for the sake of it.
Also, people rarely get hold of a gun and this sort of shooting doesn't occur in our lives while hooliganism is a real problem in our society.
Personally, I think that the media are making a load of fuss about nothing and the company are only doing it to get attention.
Now to put a bit in about how great cartoony games are...
Imagine a game where immagrants are trying to get into your country and you sit in a complex tower and as they helplessly run towards the exit, you shoot their heads off with Sniper rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns and blow them into pieces and watch them explode into pools of blood.
With realistic graphics and representations of real people, this game would be horribly sick.
In Conkers Bad Fur Day, the people are exchanged for silly characters and made comical, and a horrible disgusting scene suddenly becomes a fun, colourful enjoyable game.
It becomes like a sport. Team A do the running and hiding from the shooters while Team B try to blow them away.
This is one of many examples why Conkers bad Fur Day was such a great game.
It allowed games and morals that would be sick in a realistic game, but can be humerous behind the characteristics of strange and wonderful creatures!
I think Meka got my point.
If you are ALLOWED to kill people in games (even though they are only polygons and not real), then why are you not allowed to throw bottles at people in games (even though they are simply polygons).
After all, if everyone can tell the difference between killing a zombie with a BFG, or nuking a russian in Red Alert, then surely people can tell the difference between throwing an imaginary bottle at an imaginary football team, and throwing a real one... can't they?
If you are ALLOWED to kill people in games (even though they are only polygons and not real), then why are you not allowed to throw bottles at people in games (even though they are simply polygons).
After all, if everyone can tell the difference between killing a zombie with a BFG, or nuking a russian in Red Alert, then surely people can tell the difference between throwing an imaginary bottle at an imaginary football team, and throwing a real one... can't they?
This game has been developed to sell on controversy. What type of game is it? I don't know, maybe it's a scrolling beat em-up, in which you wander through a street, and as people approach you, you beat them up till they fall down.
Hang on, wasn't that Final Fight? Oh no, Final Fight was different, because these people got in the way of you rescuing the Presidents daughter.
Really, what's the difference though? Either way you're scrolling along, beating people up, aren't you?
But how far, is too far? As graphics are now very realistic, should games come under similar classification as movies, and age ratings be enforced? If you say your child can't watch a 15 movie, why let them play an 18 game?
But really, what does this all come down to?
Protecting the children.
Well I'm sorry, but I credit 'children' with a little more inteligence than that. I don't ever remember confusing television with reality, ever. Yes I played at The A-Team, but we only ever pretended to hit each other, knowing a real punch would hurt, and be wrong.
So are todays kids any different?
I think the problem is people are too darn obsessed with 'protecting the children' and can't remember how they were as kids, that they were capable of understanding what was real and what wasn't, and are capable of deciding not to watch something they don't like.
If someone plays this hooligan game, then goes to a football match and beats someone up, I wouldn't believe that they did it because they'd played the game, and thought it was acceptable. If they did, they'd have serious mental problems anyway, you can't blame the developers for that. Maybe because of playing the game, when they went out out their violent crusade, planned days before the game was ever played, they would decided to use a swift 'punch-punch-knee' combination, like in the game, rather than smash a bottle overe someone's head. Either way, with or without the game, it's just as bad.
Personally, I don't think I need a censor, telling me what I can, and can't watch. I saw A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 as a youngster, and given the chance to watch it again, I chose not to, as it had scared me. (Now it makes me laugh, especially when he screams like a girl). I was capable of making decisions back then, deciding I didn't want to see something, kids haven't suddenly become stupid, have they? We are all capable of deciding what we do want to watch, and what we don't, we don't need a darn censor.
So how far is too far? that's up to you to decide.
Hang on, wasn't that Final Fight? Oh no, Final Fight was different, because these people got in the way of you rescuing the Presidents daughter.
Really, what's the difference though? Either way you're scrolling along, beating people up, aren't you?
But how far, is too far? As graphics are now very realistic, should games come under similar classification as movies, and age ratings be enforced? If you say your child can't watch a 15 movie, why let them play an 18 game?
But really, what does this all come down to?
Protecting the children.
Well I'm sorry, but I credit 'children' with a little more inteligence than that. I don't ever remember confusing television with reality, ever. Yes I played at The A-Team, but we only ever pretended to hit each other, knowing a real punch would hurt, and be wrong.
So are todays kids any different?
I think the problem is people are too darn obsessed with 'protecting the children' and can't remember how they were as kids, that they were capable of understanding what was real and what wasn't, and are capable of deciding not to watch something they don't like.
If someone plays this hooligan game, then goes to a football match and beats someone up, I wouldn't believe that they did it because they'd played the game, and thought it was acceptable. If they did, they'd have serious mental problems anyway, you can't blame the developers for that. Maybe because of playing the game, when they went out out their violent crusade, planned days before the game was ever played, they would decided to use a swift 'punch-punch-knee' combination, like in the game, rather than smash a bottle overe someone's head. Either way, with or without the game, it's just as bad.
Personally, I don't think I need a censor, telling me what I can, and can't watch. I saw A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 as a youngster, and given the chance to watch it again, I chose not to, as it had scared me. (Now it makes me laugh, especially when he screams like a girl). I was capable of making decisions back then, deciding I didn't want to see something, kids haven't suddenly become stupid, have they? We are all capable of deciding what we do want to watch, and what we don't, we don't need a darn censor.
So how far is too far? that's up to you to decide.
Good point love, and well made.
its a bit different killing someone with a BFG or plasma gun to beating them to a bloddy pulp after a football match
anyone with an ounce of sence can tell that its not real when you kill someone on say red faction cos it just isnt
but killing a human in a game just seems a bit close to the knuckle to me
anyone with an ounce of sence can tell that its not real when you kill someone on say red faction cos it just isnt
but killing a human in a game just seems a bit close to the knuckle to me
Ah, but you have missed my point...
The fact is this: Killing a human is the worst crime possible.
This is allowed to happen in pixellated form in games... it's not just like real life, but it's the most morally wrong thing that you can contemplate.
So it is allowed in games.
So why isn't hooliganism? After all, it's not like real life- it's just a polygon representation of it. Just like killing in games is a graphical representation of the real life crime... which is allowed to appear in games. So, if you can have computer killing, why can't u have computer hooliganism... even though, if anything, it's a lesser crime?
The fact is this: Killing a human is the worst crime possible.
This is allowed to happen in pixellated form in games... it's not just like real life, but it's the most morally wrong thing that you can contemplate.
So it is allowed in games.
So why isn't hooliganism? After all, it's not like real life- it's just a polygon representation of it. Just like killing in games is a graphical representation of the real life crime... which is allowed to appear in games. So, if you can have computer killing, why can't u have computer hooliganism... even though, if anything, it's a lesser crime?
Logan wrote:
> Interesting point...
Why not have pornography in games?
Why not have
> sadomasocism?
Well I'm not saying remove certificates. If we can have pornography in games whats wrong with that? We have it in films. As long as it is for people over 18 then I feel this is not a problem.
> after all, it's a consensus that killing another human is the worst of all
> crimes.
Yes but its not a human we are killing in a game is it? It's a load of pixels that looks like a human.
> Interesting point...
Why not have pornography in games?
Why not have
> sadomasocism?
Well I'm not saying remove certificates. If we can have pornography in games whats wrong with that? We have it in films. As long as it is for people over 18 then I feel this is not a problem.
> after all, it's a consensus that killing another human is the worst of all
> crimes.
Yes but its not a human we are killing in a game is it? It's a load of pixels that looks like a human.
Interesting point...
Why not have pornography in games?
Why not have sadomasocism?
Both good questions... with the amount, and high detail violence in games, then how on earth care banning a game EVER be justified... after all, it's a consensus that killing another human is the worst of all crimes.
Why not have pornography in games?
Why not have sadomasocism?
Both good questions... with the amount, and high detail violence in games, then how on earth care banning a game EVER be justified... after all, it's a consensus that killing another human is the worst of all crimes.
I don't know whether you have heard but a game has been made by a Dutch company that simulates the life of a football hooligan.
Basically in the game for the PC you will play a football hooligan. You begin riots at matches ranging from pre-season to European cup games. As well as this it involves the aspect of gang loyalty which you get by carrying out looting and drinking before a match.
The game as you won't be suprised to hear might be banned.
I've been thinking about this and at first agreed with them banning this however later changed my mind.
In a hooligan game the games developers could be said to be promoting hooliganism that's fair enough and hooliganism is frowned upon by the majority of society. We consider it a crime and something that ruins the wonderful sport of football. But surely if they are going to ban this it is ridiculous.
Anyone played Grand Theft Auto? Those who have well answer me this what's worse in a hooligan game than in Grand Theft Auto. Lets compare them shall we? In Grand Theft Auto we kill people and steal cars however in the hooligan game we only cause trouble.
I'd say Grand Theft Auto seems alot worse in content in this game then in this Hooligan game. On the other hand even Carmageddon, Quake, Doom and Duke Nukem should be banned if this Hooligan game is bad surely. And in some countries games like Duke Nukem have been banned. In Brazil they have banned it after some stressed and slightly disturbed 24 year old got some guns from the Duke Nukem game and went on a rampage mimiking the game in every way.
But come to think of it why should any game be banned? Duke Nukem is a game where you kill aliens that are taking over the world we have a good vs bad scenario. And in Grand Theft Auto it is incredibly fun to run over people as they are NOT REAL. Most of us understand the differences between right and wrong and are happy to kill people in computer games. If we didn't we would all be going on rampages every day wouldn't we? And just because one person is a bit disturbed and crazy doesn't mean we all have to be punished by banning a game.
I don't really care about the theme of games. All I know is that if it's made well and fun to play I WILL play it without a question of thought. I don't feel sorry for the people I bomb in Red Alert 2 because I know it's not real, it's a fantasy and the people I'm killing don't have feelings and are just made up of several pixels. If this hooligan game is lots of fun I'm going to play it. I'm not going to mimic it, I just want to have some fun!
Over the course of gaming history people have been critising gaming, blaming it for horrible acts. In the Columbine school killings they blamed Doom. And if it's just the one person it has influenced I can't say Doom is to blame and I can't say that if he hadn't played it he wouldn't have done what he did.
People that do wrong don't do it because of games, they do it because of other factors. They are in a state where they can do it and need medical help. Games cannot be blamed. Most of us understand right and wrong and fun and reality.
So how far can games developers go? I think they can go as far as they want. I'm always for new types of games. I don't want to continuously play the aliens vs humans scenario with lots of guns to stop it. I need a change every now and again. However I'd draw the line at games like Postal where I hear you could kill CHILDREN who would scream in pain. That's not my idea of fun that's just wrong and clearly if you can make a game where children are being killed you are messed up in the head yourself.
Thanks for reading.
Basically in the game for the PC you will play a football hooligan. You begin riots at matches ranging from pre-season to European cup games. As well as this it involves the aspect of gang loyalty which you get by carrying out looting and drinking before a match.
The game as you won't be suprised to hear might be banned.
I've been thinking about this and at first agreed with them banning this however later changed my mind.
In a hooligan game the games developers could be said to be promoting hooliganism that's fair enough and hooliganism is frowned upon by the majority of society. We consider it a crime and something that ruins the wonderful sport of football. But surely if they are going to ban this it is ridiculous.
Anyone played Grand Theft Auto? Those who have well answer me this what's worse in a hooligan game than in Grand Theft Auto. Lets compare them shall we? In Grand Theft Auto we kill people and steal cars however in the hooligan game we only cause trouble.
I'd say Grand Theft Auto seems alot worse in content in this game then in this Hooligan game. On the other hand even Carmageddon, Quake, Doom and Duke Nukem should be banned if this Hooligan game is bad surely. And in some countries games like Duke Nukem have been banned. In Brazil they have banned it after some stressed and slightly disturbed 24 year old got some guns from the Duke Nukem game and went on a rampage mimiking the game in every way.
But come to think of it why should any game be banned? Duke Nukem is a game where you kill aliens that are taking over the world we have a good vs bad scenario. And in Grand Theft Auto it is incredibly fun to run over people as they are NOT REAL. Most of us understand the differences between right and wrong and are happy to kill people in computer games. If we didn't we would all be going on rampages every day wouldn't we? And just because one person is a bit disturbed and crazy doesn't mean we all have to be punished by banning a game.
I don't really care about the theme of games. All I know is that if it's made well and fun to play I WILL play it without a question of thought. I don't feel sorry for the people I bomb in Red Alert 2 because I know it's not real, it's a fantasy and the people I'm killing don't have feelings and are just made up of several pixels. If this hooligan game is lots of fun I'm going to play it. I'm not going to mimic it, I just want to have some fun!
Over the course of gaming history people have been critising gaming, blaming it for horrible acts. In the Columbine school killings they blamed Doom. And if it's just the one person it has influenced I can't say Doom is to blame and I can't say that if he hadn't played it he wouldn't have done what he did.
People that do wrong don't do it because of games, they do it because of other factors. They are in a state where they can do it and need medical help. Games cannot be blamed. Most of us understand right and wrong and fun and reality.
So how far can games developers go? I think they can go as far as they want. I'm always for new types of games. I don't want to continuously play the aliens vs humans scenario with lots of guns to stop it. I need a change every now and again. However I'd draw the line at games like Postal where I hear you could kill CHILDREN who would scream in pain. That's not my idea of fun that's just wrong and clearly if you can make a game where children are being killed you are messed up in the head yourself.
Thanks for reading.