The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
We’ve all heard the debate over video gaming turning ‘innocent children’ into psychotic murderers a million times before, and I’m not going to go into that debate. But here’s another question here. Is violence ‘cool’?
Now you may think it is a stupid question, especially after September 11th and the events related to that, but you just have to look at the Grand Theft Auto 3 advert on the Special Reserve website to see an example. The advert reads “It’s rated 18 for a reason”. Now, to me, that seems like a blatant attempt at getting people to buy it purely based on the fact that it is an 18, so it must have swearing and blood in it. I’m not trying to say Special Reserve are doing wrong here, if that advert sells then there is nothing wrong with the advert, but something wrong with the people who are buying the game based on that advert.
Now you may think that it just doesn’t apply to you, but think about it for a moment. Have you ever looked at two titles and thought you’d get one over the other because it looked more ‘mature’ in the sense of more blood/swearing/sex appeal? (sex appeal, like in Tomb Raider, where Lara’s breasts get bigger with every sequel) I know I bought Carmageddon for the PC because it was violent and looked kind of funny. But is it now becoming ‘cool’ to buy games, watch films, etc. that are 15s or 18s simply because they aren’t supposed to be viewed/played by the younger demographic? Is it just the people who are old enough (or look old enough) to see or play these who are just doing it because they know it is denied to others? I don’t think that this is often the case, but for teenagers then it could be quite often.
Now just think. Would your mates be more impressed with a game if it had blood and violence in it or wouldn’t it make a difference? Would you be more likely to buy a game with or without violence in it?
Now you may think it is a stupid question, especially after September 11th and the events related to that, but you just have to look at the Grand Theft Auto 3 advert on the Special Reserve website to see an example. The advert reads “It’s rated 18 for a reason”. Now, to me, that seems like a blatant attempt at getting people to buy it purely based on the fact that it is an 18, so it must have swearing and blood in it. I’m not trying to say Special Reserve are doing wrong here, if that advert sells then there is nothing wrong with the advert, but something wrong with the people who are buying the game based on that advert.
Now you may think that it just doesn’t apply to you, but think about it for a moment. Have you ever looked at two titles and thought you’d get one over the other because it looked more ‘mature’ in the sense of more blood/swearing/sex appeal? (sex appeal, like in Tomb Raider, where Lara’s breasts get bigger with every sequel) I know I bought Carmageddon for the PC because it was violent and looked kind of funny. But is it now becoming ‘cool’ to buy games, watch films, etc. that are 15s or 18s simply because they aren’t supposed to be viewed/played by the younger demographic? Is it just the people who are old enough (or look old enough) to see or play these who are just doing it because they know it is denied to others? I don’t think that this is often the case, but for teenagers then it could be quite often.
Now just think. Would your mates be more impressed with a game if it had blood and violence in it or wouldn’t it make a difference? Would you be more likely to buy a game with or without violence in it?
Page:
yeah, I don't mean that these games are creating killers or anything. I think people should be allowed to play these games, because they are not going to make people go out and kill people, but it is not good for gamers, because developers may just start sacrificing gameplay, and making games as violent as possible to sell them.
Sibs wrote:
> That's kind of my point Mr Snuggly... people may buy it just for the violence,
> and not the gameplay... and I think that's a bad thing.
But as long as they dont act on the violent images they see i dont find any reason why they shouldnt play it.
> That's kind of my point Mr Snuggly... people may buy it just for the violence,
> and not the gameplay... and I think that's a bad thing.
But as long as they dont act on the violent images they see i dont find any reason why they shouldnt play it.
That's kind of my point Mr Snuggly... people may buy it just for the violence, and not the gameplay... and I think that's a bad thing.
I think the first one Snuggly :)
Hands up how many people bought GTA3 for it's fluffy gameplay and non-violent gameplay aspects?
Hands up how many people bought GTA3 for the over the top violence and mayhem>
Thought so.
Hands up how many people bought GTA3 for the over the top violence and mayhem>
Thought so.
nice point there game... oh and merry Xmas everyone, cos it's Christmas eve and I'm in a good mood!
I haven't had time to read all the replies, and if someone's aleady said this, then I apologise...
I think the rating that games get aren't just to determine who should play them, but that they also have a very big part to play in the marketting of the game...
Like Sibs said, having games that only older people should play is perceived as 'cool' when you're 15/16... and I can't see anything wrong with exploiting the image-conscious teenagers of today... not one bit.
The only thing that worries me is the the standards of the ESRB, or it's UK counterpart... if games get flase ratings thanks to a £10,000 pay off to them, there isn't actually going to be anyone we can trust...
It's quite funny that we want to play older games when we're young and what our kids to play younger games when we're old!
Still...
...Smash your Slade CD's and have a nice Christmas!
Game
I think the rating that games get aren't just to determine who should play them, but that they also have a very big part to play in the marketting of the game...
Like Sibs said, having games that only older people should play is perceived as 'cool' when you're 15/16... and I can't see anything wrong with exploiting the image-conscious teenagers of today... not one bit.
The only thing that worries me is the the standards of the ESRB, or it's UK counterpart... if games get flase ratings thanks to a £10,000 pay off to them, there isn't actually going to be anyone we can trust...
It's quite funny that we want to play older games when we're young and what our kids to play younger games when we're old!
Still...
...Smash your Slade CD's and have a nice Christmas!
Game
Violence is only 'cool' when done well, like GTA3 for example, but games with unnecessary violence all the time just becomes a bore to play. People that complain about violence should realise thatit is entertainment and that if any child was influenced by a game, then there would be a unlikely massacre.
And how come I am still a 'child' when it comes to alcohol, but when it's train fares or bus fares (complete blummin rip off!) then I'm an adult, and have to pay full price?!?
Damn dirty age stuff...
Damn dirty age stuff...
Kid Rock wrote:
> at 16 you can have a sh*g but you cant watch it or look at it in magazines till
> you are 18.
weird
KR
It's worse in america...
u can father a chile at 16 (in some places it's younger!), but can't drink till you're 21 because you're not thought to be mature enough!!!?!?
Sonic
> at 16 you can have a sh*g but you cant watch it or look at it in magazines till
> you are 18.
weird
KR
It's worse in america...
u can father a chile at 16 (in some places it's younger!), but can't drink till you're 21 because you're not thought to be mature enough!!!?!?
Sonic
Page: