The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Is the videogame world as we know it going to change forever ?
Since the September 11 attack on USA it has become obvious that a lot of games (and indeed movies) have been pulled back for some serious editing (read that as "pulled back to remove anything to do with the Twin Towers in New York City) and possibly to remove certain parts of the violent content.
What does this mean to us, the gaming community ?
Are our games, which are really only starting to come into their own for violent content, suddenly going to be softened down ?
(Hey, maybe Nintendo knew about this.... maybe now their "gentle, gentle" approach to gameplay is going to pay off !)
But seriously where is this current state of world affairs going to leave game development ?
Will Solid Snake have to resort to using harsh language to subdue his opponents ?
Will Lara Croft decide to go on a few nature walks ?
Will Mario just jump on things without actually killing anything ? (Oh wait , he already does that!)
I for one do not understand why we need to tone down games just because of the attack on America. Don't get me wrong, I am as shocked and disgusted as the next person, but really why change our video games ? Being violent in a game is not going to cause me to buy a plane and crash it in to something.
I know people will reply to this saying that games are being altered to remove sensitive areas (like MGS2 showing the buildings near the World Trade Centre getting trashed) but in fairness this, in my humble opinion, is real hypocrasy.
Why, you ask ?
Well take a look at any World War 2 game that is out there today. I am sure there are a lot of people that were badly affected by WWII and would like to try and forget it ever happened, but do we let them ? NO. Instead we publish games like Wolfenstein, where you can run around killing nazis all over the place. Or Commandos 2, where we can reenact various strategic conflicts behind enemy lines in Germany. And don't get me started on Medal of Honour; Frontline.
Just because America got attacked everyone is suddenly up in arms about video games. But what about people in other countries that have been attacked over the years, surely they count for something too ?
Would we be allowed to release a game where Afghanastan gets attacked instead of USA ? Probably.
Surely this is unfair.
Finally, let me finish by clarifying that I am not trying to get a "violence in videogames" debate going here. Rather I'd like to get your opinions on why certain content is considered taboo, while other content (about other continents) is fine.
Thanks for reading.
kevd.
Since the September 11 attack on USA it has become obvious that a lot of games (and indeed movies) have been pulled back for some serious editing (read that as "pulled back to remove anything to do with the Twin Towers in New York City) and possibly to remove certain parts of the violent content.
What does this mean to us, the gaming community ?
Are our games, which are really only starting to come into their own for violent content, suddenly going to be softened down ?
(Hey, maybe Nintendo knew about this.... maybe now their "gentle, gentle" approach to gameplay is going to pay off !)
But seriously where is this current state of world affairs going to leave game development ?
Will Solid Snake have to resort to using harsh language to subdue his opponents ?
Will Lara Croft decide to go on a few nature walks ?
Will Mario just jump on things without actually killing anything ? (Oh wait , he already does that!)
I for one do not understand why we need to tone down games just because of the attack on America. Don't get me wrong, I am as shocked and disgusted as the next person, but really why change our video games ? Being violent in a game is not going to cause me to buy a plane and crash it in to something.
I know people will reply to this saying that games are being altered to remove sensitive areas (like MGS2 showing the buildings near the World Trade Centre getting trashed) but in fairness this, in my humble opinion, is real hypocrasy.
Why, you ask ?
Well take a look at any World War 2 game that is out there today. I am sure there are a lot of people that were badly affected by WWII and would like to try and forget it ever happened, but do we let them ? NO. Instead we publish games like Wolfenstein, where you can run around killing nazis all over the place. Or Commandos 2, where we can reenact various strategic conflicts behind enemy lines in Germany. And don't get me started on Medal of Honour; Frontline.
Just because America got attacked everyone is suddenly up in arms about video games. But what about people in other countries that have been attacked over the years, surely they count for something too ?
Would we be allowed to release a game where Afghanastan gets attacked instead of USA ? Probably.
Surely this is unfair.
Finally, let me finish by clarifying that I am not trying to get a "violence in videogames" debate going here. Rather I'd like to get your opinions on why certain content is considered taboo, while other content (about other continents) is fine.
Thanks for reading.
kevd.
kevd wrote:
OK everyone,
> hand-on-heart, be honest, is there anyone out there who didn't think that seeing
> those planes hitting the twin towers actually looked pretty cool ? I did (for a
> few seconds, until it dawned on me just how horrific this tragedy was).
Wasn't most peoples reaction "It's like
> watching a movie" "It doesn't seem real" and so on.... we're too
> used to seeing this type of thing to accept it as reality.
Here lies the problem. When I saw the trailer for "Independance Day", the most impressive part was when they blew up the White House. We were amazed at how real it was. The Terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 looked almost the same.
I really believe that if I see someone shot dead in my life, I will be more prepared for what I would see because of games and videos. Obviously, I pray that it never ever happens.
OK everyone,
> hand-on-heart, be honest, is there anyone out there who didn't think that seeing
> those planes hitting the twin towers actually looked pretty cool ? I did (for a
> few seconds, until it dawned on me just how horrific this tragedy was).
Wasn't most peoples reaction "It's like
> watching a movie" "It doesn't seem real" and so on.... we're too
> used to seeing this type of thing to accept it as reality.
Here lies the problem. When I saw the trailer for "Independance Day", the most impressive part was when they blew up the White House. We were amazed at how real it was. The Terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 looked almost the same.
I really believe that if I see someone shot dead in my life, I will be more prepared for what I would see because of games and videos. Obviously, I pray that it never ever happens.
wrote:
> In reply to a-man5150. I have to agree when you say that violent content can reduce our reaction to real life violence.
OK everyone, hand-on-heart, be honest, is there anyone out there who didn't think that seeing those planes hitting the twin towers actually looked pretty cool ? I did (for a few seconds, until it dawned on me just how horrific this tragedy was). Please don't reply to this one saying I'm sick or anything, but you couldn't get effects like that in a movie.
Wasn't most peoples reaction "It's like watching a movie" "It doesn't seem real" and so on.... we're too used to seeing this type of thing to accept it as reality.
> In reply to a-man5150. I have to agree when you say that violent content can reduce our reaction to real life violence.
OK everyone, hand-on-heart, be honest, is there anyone out there who didn't think that seeing those planes hitting the twin towers actually looked pretty cool ? I did (for a few seconds, until it dawned on me just how horrific this tragedy was). Please don't reply to this one saying I'm sick or anything, but you couldn't get effects like that in a movie.
Wasn't most peoples reaction "It's like watching a movie" "It doesn't seem real" and so on.... we're too used to seeing this type of thing to accept it as reality.
wrote:
> Definitely future based games should take the sting out of things, but that could have the adverse affect of all games looking and feeling the same.
Isn't it possible to beat MGS2 without killing anyone ? That has to be looked upon as a favourable aspect. But on the other hand I reckon that it is the POSSIBILITY to kill people that will cause the problem.
Ah sure we'll have to wait and see I guess.
I'm quite surprised GTA3 hasn't been pulled yet....
> Definitely future based games should take the sting out of things, but that could have the adverse affect of all games looking and feeling the same.
Isn't it possible to beat MGS2 without killing anyone ? That has to be looked upon as a favourable aspect. But on the other hand I reckon that it is the POSSIBILITY to kill people that will cause the problem.
Ah sure we'll have to wait and see I guess.
I'm quite surprised GTA3 hasn't been pulled yet....
Your Honour wrote:
Maybe
> they'll find a way round it though. Maybe FPS's will be set in the future, so
> there's less relation between the game and the current time. Maybe games will go
> down the route of the Theif games, in that in some missions, you can't kill
> anyone and still succeed.
Thoughts?
I think that you just might have it, Your Honour. I think that the Game Creators will now come under pressure to reduce the similarity of games to real time situations. Games set in the future or past, with weapnary which is not yet or no longer used, may well be the way forward.
My girlfriend truly believes that our daughter shoot not play FPS's and Half-Life is never on when she is around. The problem is that we do not know who is and who is not affected by these things. Personally, I believe that shooting green aliens which expolde with purple blood will never have the same affect on someone as shooting a real person in these games. It is possible that games which involve real-life situations reduce our dismay at violence. If we were not used to killing real looking characters in games, would be be more horrified when we see people dying on the news.
This is a good topic. Let's discuss this. I would like to hear peoples views.
Maybe
> they'll find a way round it though. Maybe FPS's will be set in the future, so
> there's less relation between the game and the current time. Maybe games will go
> down the route of the Theif games, in that in some missions, you can't kill
> anyone and still succeed.
Thoughts?
I think that you just might have it, Your Honour. I think that the Game Creators will now come under pressure to reduce the similarity of games to real time situations. Games set in the future or past, with weapnary which is not yet or no longer used, may well be the way forward.
My girlfriend truly believes that our daughter shoot not play FPS's and Half-Life is never on when she is around. The problem is that we do not know who is and who is not affected by these things. Personally, I believe that shooting green aliens which expolde with purple blood will never have the same affect on someone as shooting a real person in these games. It is possible that games which involve real-life situations reduce our dismay at violence. If we were not used to killing real looking characters in games, would be be more horrified when we see people dying on the news.
This is a good topic. Let's discuss this. I would like to hear peoples views.
I know what you're saying about the whole "violence in other countries doesn't stop games" thing.
In loads of games the missions you do see you in countries like Iraq, Iran etc etc. Yet those people have had attacks on them for number of years.
It does seem strange that as soon as it's the Americans under attack, everyone is like "Woah! Better stop this now."
I heard something on the radio where people were saying that films won't have a huge bodycount just for the sake of it. So does this mean no more films like Robocop, Rambo Lethal Weapon etc etc?
Will this translate into less killing in games?
We'll have to wait and see, but I personally hope not.
Maybe they'll find a way round it though. Maybe FPS's will be set in the future, so there's less relation between the game and the current time. Maybe games will go down the route of the Theif games, in that in some missions, you can't kill anyone and still succeed.
Thoughts?
In loads of games the missions you do see you in countries like Iraq, Iran etc etc. Yet those people have had attacks on them for number of years.
It does seem strange that as soon as it's the Americans under attack, everyone is like "Woah! Better stop this now."
I heard something on the radio where people were saying that films won't have a huge bodycount just for the sake of it. So does this mean no more films like Robocop, Rambo Lethal Weapon etc etc?
Will this translate into less killing in games?
We'll have to wait and see, but I personally hope not.
Maybe they'll find a way round it though. Maybe FPS's will be set in the future, so there's less relation between the game and the current time. Maybe games will go down the route of the Theif games, in that in some missions, you can't kill anyone and still succeed.
Thoughts?
Is the videogame world as we know it going to change forever ?
Since the September 11 attack on USA it has become obvious that a lot of games (and indeed movies) have been pulled back for some serious editing (read that as "pulled back to remove anything to do with the Twin Towers in New York City) and possibly to remove certain parts of the violent content.
What does this mean to us, the gaming community ?
Are our games, which are really only starting to come into their own for violent content, suddenly going to be softened down ?
(Hey, maybe Nintendo knew about this.... maybe now their "gentle, gentle" approach to gameplay is going to pay off !)
But seriously where is this current state of world affairs going to leave game development ?
Will Solid Snake have to resort to using harsh language to subdue his opponents ?
Will Lara Croft decide to go on a few nature walks ?
Will Mario just jump on things without actually killing anything ? (Oh wait , he already does that!)
I for one do not understand why we need to tone down games just because of the attack on America. Don't get me wrong, I am as shocked and disgusted as the next person, but really why change our video games ? Being violent in a game is not going to cause me to buy a plane and crash it in to something.
I know people will reply to this saying that games are being altered to remove sensitive areas (like MGS2 showing the buildings near the World Trade Centre getting trashed) but in fairness this, in my humble opinion, is real hypocrasy.
Why, you ask ?
Well take a look at any World War 2 game that is out there today. I am sure there are a lot of people that were badly affected by WWII and would like to try and forget it ever happened, but do we let them ? NO. Instead we publish games like Wolfenstein, where you can run around killing nazis all over the place. Or Commandos 2, where we can reenact various strategic conflicts behind enemy lines in Germany. And don't get me started on Medal of Honour; Frontline.
Just because America got attacked everyone is suddenly up in arms about video games. But what about people in other countries that have been attacked over the years, surely they count for something too ?
Would we be allowed to release a game where Afghanastan gets attacked instead of USA ? Probably.
Surely this is unfair.
Finally, let me finish by clarifying that I am not trying to get a "violence in videogames" debate going here. Rather I'd like to get your opinions on why certain content is considered taboo, while other content (about other continents) is fine.
Thanks for reading.
kevd.
Since the September 11 attack on USA it has become obvious that a lot of games (and indeed movies) have been pulled back for some serious editing (read that as "pulled back to remove anything to do with the Twin Towers in New York City) and possibly to remove certain parts of the violent content.
What does this mean to us, the gaming community ?
Are our games, which are really only starting to come into their own for violent content, suddenly going to be softened down ?
(Hey, maybe Nintendo knew about this.... maybe now their "gentle, gentle" approach to gameplay is going to pay off !)
But seriously where is this current state of world affairs going to leave game development ?
Will Solid Snake have to resort to using harsh language to subdue his opponents ?
Will Lara Croft decide to go on a few nature walks ?
Will Mario just jump on things without actually killing anything ? (Oh wait , he already does that!)
I for one do not understand why we need to tone down games just because of the attack on America. Don't get me wrong, I am as shocked and disgusted as the next person, but really why change our video games ? Being violent in a game is not going to cause me to buy a plane and crash it in to something.
I know people will reply to this saying that games are being altered to remove sensitive areas (like MGS2 showing the buildings near the World Trade Centre getting trashed) but in fairness this, in my humble opinion, is real hypocrasy.
Why, you ask ?
Well take a look at any World War 2 game that is out there today. I am sure there are a lot of people that were badly affected by WWII and would like to try and forget it ever happened, but do we let them ? NO. Instead we publish games like Wolfenstein, where you can run around killing nazis all over the place. Or Commandos 2, where we can reenact various strategic conflicts behind enemy lines in Germany. And don't get me started on Medal of Honour; Frontline.
Just because America got attacked everyone is suddenly up in arms about video games. But what about people in other countries that have been attacked over the years, surely they count for something too ?
Would we be allowed to release a game where Afghanastan gets attacked instead of USA ? Probably.
Surely this is unfair.
Finally, let me finish by clarifying that I am not trying to get a "violence in videogames" debate going here. Rather I'd like to get your opinions on why certain content is considered taboo, while other content (about other continents) is fine.
Thanks for reading.
kevd.