The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Making moral decisions? You know where you have to think, Ok is this right or wrong? Should I be doing this? I'm sure you have made a few in your life but what about in your gaming life? I myself can't recall any times that during a game I have had to make any kind of moral decision. No doubt Grand Theft Auto 3 came close but when you think about it the words "it's only a game" seem to make you not go into in depth thought, you just enjoy what it is you are doing and get on with the game.
So is it just that there are no games out there that require us to make such decisions? Is it just that developers know not to include such options in their games or is it just that this never seemed like a good idea?
I guess it all depends on the person playing the game, what seems perfectly fine to one person may be totally out of the question to others. Shooting adults in games seems fine, all the FPS's and games like GTA3 require you to shoot men and sometimes women. So what about kids? Pregnant women? OAP's etc. To me these seem a little weird but when it is a game surely we can tell what is right and what is wrong and what not to copy in real life? So what other moral decisions are deemed "unacceptable"? Usually things that aren't accepted in real life with the exception of a few aren't included in games. There are probably reasons why they aren't too. Issues like racism, cults, sex offenders etc are all big problems in life but never seem to crop up in games. What are the reasons for this?
I think an idea of using moral decisions could be a great addition if the idea of non-linear games takes off more. Non-linear game are games in which you don't have to follow a set path to go from the start to the end, instead you are free to roam the whole environment and do things when you want in any order you want. Similar to grand theft auto 3 and in my opinion this is one reason why this game is so popular.
An extra to this idea is the idea of an environment which you can fully explore and interact with, obviously there are restrictions on the storage in most games but in the future this could disappear and allow an environment which can be fully explored in which the character can use a lot of the objects within the environment, so things like having conversions with characters and each time you talk to them under different situations the conversation is different. Or using the environment you are in to your advantage like, being able to use various objects as weapons or instead of hunting for keys just blast through the door. Things like the ability to use nearly everything in the environment. I was playing resident evil Code Veronica X and you enter a room with loads of automatic weapons in a case. Why can't you just shoot the lock or blow the doors of and take the guns?
During the game you could be faced with various moral decisions and depending on how you act to these depends on which parts of the game you have access to and what you can or can't do. I think this is quite a good idea and could be quite beneficial for certain games. Of course to work to its true potential games would have to be a bit more advanced than they are today. But someday it could be part of a variety of games.
Going back to an earlier point about why there are no games yet that really require us to make a moral decision. I think it is because anything that makes games a little violent or containing more gore always seems to get too much bad press, until society can except that games are only games and don't make people evil and violent then developers aren't going to take the risk and include even more violent scenes that are against peoples morals.
If a developer does get a bad name due to a game that is too graphic or contains something that the public and society don't really accept then it could be fatal to the developer and it's future. Maybe it will be some time before they are willing to take such risks.
So is it just that there are no games out there that require us to make such decisions? Is it just that developers know not to include such options in their games or is it just that this never seemed like a good idea?
I guess it all depends on the person playing the game, what seems perfectly fine to one person may be totally out of the question to others. Shooting adults in games seems fine, all the FPS's and games like GTA3 require you to shoot men and sometimes women. So what about kids? Pregnant women? OAP's etc. To me these seem a little weird but when it is a game surely we can tell what is right and what is wrong and what not to copy in real life? So what other moral decisions are deemed "unacceptable"? Usually things that aren't accepted in real life with the exception of a few aren't included in games. There are probably reasons why they aren't too. Issues like racism, cults, sex offenders etc are all big problems in life but never seem to crop up in games. What are the reasons for this?
I think an idea of using moral decisions could be a great addition if the idea of non-linear games takes off more. Non-linear game are games in which you don't have to follow a set path to go from the start to the end, instead you are free to roam the whole environment and do things when you want in any order you want. Similar to grand theft auto 3 and in my opinion this is one reason why this game is so popular.
An extra to this idea is the idea of an environment which you can fully explore and interact with, obviously there are restrictions on the storage in most games but in the future this could disappear and allow an environment which can be fully explored in which the character can use a lot of the objects within the environment, so things like having conversions with characters and each time you talk to them under different situations the conversation is different. Or using the environment you are in to your advantage like, being able to use various objects as weapons or instead of hunting for keys just blast through the door. Things like the ability to use nearly everything in the environment. I was playing resident evil Code Veronica X and you enter a room with loads of automatic weapons in a case. Why can't you just shoot the lock or blow the doors of and take the guns?
During the game you could be faced with various moral decisions and depending on how you act to these depends on which parts of the game you have access to and what you can or can't do. I think this is quite a good idea and could be quite beneficial for certain games. Of course to work to its true potential games would have to be a bit more advanced than they are today. But someday it could be part of a variety of games.
Going back to an earlier point about why there are no games yet that really require us to make a moral decision. I think it is because anything that makes games a little violent or containing more gore always seems to get too much bad press, until society can except that games are only games and don't make people evil and violent then developers aren't going to take the risk and include even more violent scenes that are against peoples morals.
If a developer does get a bad name due to a game that is too graphic or contains something that the public and society don't really accept then it could be fatal to the developer and it's future. Maybe it will be some time before they are willing to take such risks.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Mashy mashy.
Thanks for the intelectual reply rasta : )
> Mashy mashy.
Thanks for the intelectual reply rasta : )
I just rutted two w****s, then violently killed them with a baseball bat to get back my money. Then I dropped a tank on an old lady. Doesn't make me want to do it in real life though. Anyone who does act out stuff they see in games obviously has real problems, but it's not the game's fault. They could just have easily done something they saw in a film, or on the news.
It's like the guys who flew a Cessna into a sky scraper. He was influenced by Osama Bin Laden via the news. If he had GTA3 he'd probably have done something from that. People aren't "warped" by games, they're already warped, but sometimes games are the trigger.
It's like the guys who flew a Cessna into a sky scraper. He was influenced by Osama Bin Laden via the news. If he had GTA3 he'd probably have done something from that. People aren't "warped" by games, they're already warped, but sometimes games are the trigger.
Mashy mashy.
Making moral decisions? You know where you have to think, Ok is this right or wrong? Should I be doing this? I'm sure you have made a few in your life but what about in your gaming life? I myself can't recall any times that during a game I have had to make any kind of moral decision. No doubt Grand Theft Auto 3 came close but when you think about it the words "it's only a game" seem to make you not go into in depth thought, you just enjoy what it is you are doing and get on with the game.
So is it just that there are no games out there that require us to make such decisions? Is it just that developers know not to include such options in their games or is it just that this never seemed like a good idea?
I guess it all depends on the person playing the game, what seems perfectly fine to one person may be totally out of the question to others. Shooting adults in games seems fine, all the FPS's and games like GTA3 require you to shoot men and sometimes women. So what about kids? Pregnant women? OAP's etc. To me these seem a little weird but when it is a game surely we can tell what is right and what is wrong and what not to copy in real life? So what other moral decisions are deemed "unacceptable"? Usually things that aren't accepted in real life with the exception of a few aren't included in games. There are probably reasons why they aren't too. Issues like racism, cults, sex offenders etc are all big problems in life but never seem to crop up in games. What are the reasons for this?
I think an idea of using moral decisions could be a great addition if the idea of non-linear games takes off more. Non-linear game are games in which you don't have to follow a set path to go from the start to the end, instead you are free to roam the whole environment and do things when you want in any order you want. Similar to grand theft auto 3 and in my opinion this is one reason why this game is so popular.
An extra to this idea is the idea of an environment which you can fully explore and interact with, obviously there are restrictions on the storage in most games but in the future this could disappear and allow an environment which can be fully explored in which the character can use a lot of the objects within the environment, so things like having conversions with characters and each time you talk to them under different situations the conversation is different. Or using the environment you are in to your advantage like, being able to use various objects as weapons or instead of hunting for keys just blast through the door. Things like the ability to use nearly everything in the environment. I was playing resident evil Code Veronica X and you enter a room with loads of automatic weapons in a case. Why can't you just shoot the lock or blow the doors of and take the guns?
During the game you could be faced with various moral decisions and depending on how you act to these depends on which parts of the game you have access to and what you can or can't do. I think this is quite a good idea and could be quite beneficial for certain games. Of course to work to its true potential games would have to be a bit more advanced than they are today. But someday it could be part of a variety of games.
Going back to an earlier point about why there are no games yet that really require us to make a moral decision. I think it is because anything that makes games a little violent or containing more gore always seems to get too much bad press, until society can except that games are only games and don't make people evil and violent then developers aren't going to take the risk and include even more violent scenes that are against peoples morals.
If a developer does get a bad name due to a game that is too graphic or contains something that the public and society don't really accept then it could be fatal to the developer and it's future. Maybe it will be some time before they are willing to take such risks.
So is it just that there are no games out there that require us to make such decisions? Is it just that developers know not to include such options in their games or is it just that this never seemed like a good idea?
I guess it all depends on the person playing the game, what seems perfectly fine to one person may be totally out of the question to others. Shooting adults in games seems fine, all the FPS's and games like GTA3 require you to shoot men and sometimes women. So what about kids? Pregnant women? OAP's etc. To me these seem a little weird but when it is a game surely we can tell what is right and what is wrong and what not to copy in real life? So what other moral decisions are deemed "unacceptable"? Usually things that aren't accepted in real life with the exception of a few aren't included in games. There are probably reasons why they aren't too. Issues like racism, cults, sex offenders etc are all big problems in life but never seem to crop up in games. What are the reasons for this?
I think an idea of using moral decisions could be a great addition if the idea of non-linear games takes off more. Non-linear game are games in which you don't have to follow a set path to go from the start to the end, instead you are free to roam the whole environment and do things when you want in any order you want. Similar to grand theft auto 3 and in my opinion this is one reason why this game is so popular.
An extra to this idea is the idea of an environment which you can fully explore and interact with, obviously there are restrictions on the storage in most games but in the future this could disappear and allow an environment which can be fully explored in which the character can use a lot of the objects within the environment, so things like having conversions with characters and each time you talk to them under different situations the conversation is different. Or using the environment you are in to your advantage like, being able to use various objects as weapons or instead of hunting for keys just blast through the door. Things like the ability to use nearly everything in the environment. I was playing resident evil Code Veronica X and you enter a room with loads of automatic weapons in a case. Why can't you just shoot the lock or blow the doors of and take the guns?
During the game you could be faced with various moral decisions and depending on how you act to these depends on which parts of the game you have access to and what you can or can't do. I think this is quite a good idea and could be quite beneficial for certain games. Of course to work to its true potential games would have to be a bit more advanced than they are today. But someday it could be part of a variety of games.
Going back to an earlier point about why there are no games yet that really require us to make a moral decision. I think it is because anything that makes games a little violent or containing more gore always seems to get too much bad press, until society can except that games are only games and don't make people evil and violent then developers aren't going to take the risk and include even more violent scenes that are against peoples morals.
If a developer does get a bad name due to a game that is too graphic or contains something that the public and society don't really accept then it could be fatal to the developer and it's future. Maybe it will be some time before they are willing to take such risks.