Viewing Thread:
"War Games - Thumbs up or down?"

With a lot of consideration of war going on and Bush acting as mad as he always was ( I am not an anti-Americanist for all those Bushophiles out there)I find myself wondering whether developers are doing the right thing pushing out war games at a rate of knots. Sure they're fun, in a way, if you take no notice of current affairs, but is it the developers at fault or us?
If you have no idea what I'm talking about read on... ( that line sounds familiar...)
One could argue that developers are thoughtless, mindless beings for making violent, graphic games. But when you think about it, they're only doing it for the money they rake in from us, the Bloodthirsty General Public ( referred to as the B.G.P.) After all, it is us that fuel the making of such games. We buy and play them with such enjoyment that developers have no real choice but to make what's good for their income.
Are war games goood or bad? I say bad, but I am eager to her your opinions on the matter too.

Knick Knack

Grix Thraves wrote:
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> :P
>
> ...
>
> Always correct*
>
> * Has been wrong several times.

What does that mean?

FantasyMeister wrote:
> :P
>
> ...

Always correct*

* Has been wrong several times.

Sylphetic wrote:
> Hey, if you can't do anything else, make money from it. It's a good
> philosophy in life me thinks.

If I kill you, I'll get money...
Now where did my axe go...

It doesn't matter if you make money or not! If someone said they'd give you ten quid to shout racist remarks and commit genocide, would ya' do it?!

Hey, if you can't do anything else, make money from it. It's a good philosophy in life me thinks.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> The Mayans.
> The Egyptians
> The Carpathian barbarians
> The Japanese
> The Mongols
> The Romans
> The Danes
> The Spanish
> The French
> The English
> The Scottish
> The Americans
> The Russians
>
>
> I could go on listing all of the people who have had vicious and
> bloody wars before the invention of electricity, let alone war games,
> but the above is example enough. Pretty much every nation has been
> involved in a war of some sort in its history, if not several. War
> games don't encourage nations to flap about in all-out war, nor do
> they encourage the general public to support such action by its
> nations leaders.
>
> It's entertainment.

No, I'm saying that's it's not right to cash in on current events when lots of people could be dying in the world, I'm not saying that war games are the causers of war.

I doubt it, i will have to be home to post my moves, so hours of play will probably be between 6-10pm.

Should be good fun though.

cookie monster wrote:
> Next tuesday it is then.

In my History and Biology lessons it is then.. :-)

Sorry for the late reply IB, ive been unusually busy.

Next tuesday it is then.

War Games ruled.

*Realises this isn't the film there talking about*

*Runs*

Then I concur.

I personally think that wargames are fine. As well as being educational to some degree, the fact that 'most' of them carry an anti-war message in some form or another, or the fact that 'most' of them are aimed at the 15+ age group who should 'know' that they're playing a somewhat 'dehorrified' version of a real event should make them perfectly acceptible.

The problem still lies with parents and slack shop assistants who don't take the age recommendations on the game box covers seriously and allow impressionable youths to play such games, because there's the risk of them becoming desensitised.

So if in doubt, blame the parents, GAME, and of course the French.