The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
With the recent release of GTA3, once again a storm of negative publicity has arisen in the media concerning videogames’ terrible affect on all who play them.
The hate campaign on our beloved pastime first started with the advent of Grand Theft Auto on the PC and subsequently the PlayStation and GBC. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – thank god it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or ‘taboo’ feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their so-called target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make bloody good violent games get just as much stick as the bad developers.
But just who’s idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors (even Prince Charles for god’s sake) claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves be violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposedly clever people who should know better, don’t. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark (N64) was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate’s legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare’s subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don’t know, but I DO know that since the release of Perfect Dark mister Miyamoto has not been killed by ANY of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured lot possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency (PS2) and Resident Evil (NGC) are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting ESBA ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Perfect Dark an 18? GTA3 an 18? I saw nothing in those games that I haven’t seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swear-word. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action is gratified, but in games such things are said to warp our fragile minds.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It’s a stupid question, and one these so-called expert shrinks should be asking themselves before condoning our hobby. Videogames doesn’t inspire violence, violence inspires videogames. And so it should be.
-M-
The hate campaign on our beloved pastime first started with the advent of Grand Theft Auto on the PC and subsequently the PlayStation and GBC. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – thank god it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or ‘taboo’ feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their so-called target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make bloody good violent games get just as much stick as the bad developers.
But just who’s idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors (even Prince Charles for god’s sake) claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves be violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposedly clever people who should know better, don’t. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark (N64) was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate’s legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare’s subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don’t know, but I DO know that since the release of Perfect Dark mister Miyamoto has not been killed by ANY of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured lot possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency (PS2) and Resident Evil (NGC) are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting ESBA ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Perfect Dark an 18? GTA3 an 18? I saw nothing in those games that I haven’t seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swear-word. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action is gratified, but in games such things are said to warp our fragile minds.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It’s a stupid question, and one these so-called expert shrinks should be asking themselves before condoning our hobby. Videogames doesn’t inspire violence, violence inspires videogames. And so it should be.
-M-
With the recent release of GTA3, once again a storm of negative publicity has arisen in the media concerning videogames’ terrible affect on all who play them.
The hate campaign on our beloved pastime first started with the advent of Grand Theft Auto on the PC and subsequently the PlayStation and GBC. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – thank god it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or ‘taboo’ feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their so-called target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make bloody good violent games get just as much stick as the bad developers.
But just who’s idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors (even Prince Charles for god’s sake) claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves be violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposedly clever people who should know better, don’t. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark (N64) was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate’s legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare’s subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don’t know, but I DO know that since the release of Perfect Dark mister Miyamoto has not been killed by ANY of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured lot possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency (PS2) and Resident Evil (NGC) are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting ESBA ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Perfect Dark an 18? GTA3 an 18? I saw nothing in those games that I haven’t seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swear-word. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action is gratified, but in games such things are said to warp our fragile minds.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It’s a stupid question, and one these so-called expert shrinks should be asking themselves before condoning our hobby. Videogames doesn’t inspire violence, violence inspires videogames. And so it should be.
-M-
The hate campaign on our beloved pastime first started with the advent of Grand Theft Auto on the PC and subsequently the PlayStation and GBC. Such a game involving violence, theft, drugs, sex and just about every taboo aspect of society, was almost prevented from being released and the publicity it received in all media all over the world made it one of the most famous and popular games ever – thank god it was a cracking game at that!
Because if games involving violence are bad, the violent, gory or ‘taboo’ feature in the game is regarded as a gimmick, as it should be. Many lesser developers prey on the stereotypical gamer (shallow teenager with no interest in hardcore gaming) and so make a game that will attract their so-called target audience. But what the videogames industry gets on a whole is just more poor publicity and a bad image. The gamers themselves are seen as shallow gore-obsessed geeks and the talented developers who can make bloody good violent games get just as much stick as the bad developers.
But just who’s idea was it that violence in videogames is bad anyway? Once again the general public and our supposed superiors (even Prince Charles for god’s sake) claim that pastimes involving violence (even virtual ones) make us ourselves be violent in everyday life.
The funny thing is though is that all gamers and many others know this to be a load of absolute twoddle. The irony is that the supposedly clever people who should know better, don’t. The face-capturing feature in Perfect Dark (N64) was ditched due to American psychologists claiming that such a feature in a game would cause small American children to finish playing a deathmatch and then go and blow their best mate’s legs off with a shotgun. However the face of Shigeru Miyamoto was still left in the game. Whether this was a small rebellion against censorship or just Rare’s subtle way to try and get Shigsy assassinated I don’t know, but I DO know that since the release of Perfect Dark mister Miyamoto has not been killed by ANY of the millions of Perfect Dark players throughout the world.
The same applies to Grand Theft Auto. People who play games in that particular trilogy do not suddenly join gangs and Triads and whatnot. This is just the way that the non-gaming fraction of the world see us impressionable folk.
This misguided opinion many of these uncultured lot possess is having a negative effect on the gaming world as well. Because of this eternal worry that games like State of Emergency (PS2) and Resident Evil (NGC) are all going to turn us into gun-toting psychopaths, recently games have been getting ESBA ratings that are far too harsh. I mean, Perfect Dark an 18? GTA3 an 18? I saw nothing in those games that I haven’t seen in a certificate 12 movie, save the occasional swear-word. It seems that the film-world can bring to light some issues that videogames cannot. In films, violence and action is gratified, but in games such things are said to warp our fragile minds.
So what came first, the videogame or the violence? It’s a stupid question, and one these so-called expert shrinks should be asking themselves before condoning our hobby. Videogames doesn’t inspire violence, violence inspires videogames. And so it should be.
-M-
Are you [email protected]?
Nice post :), i agree totally with yah.
i have played games for 10 years and i have never stole a car or shot someone ever. The critics just grasp at straws
i have played games for 10 years and i have never stole a car or shot someone ever. The critics just grasp at straws
POP
0-MessiaH-0 wrote:
> POP
pop?
> POP
pop?
POP just means that this goes back to the top of the forum so people can read it and hopefully post intelligent comments. So guys, what are your views on violence in videogames? Should they be rated? Has a violent videogame affected you?
0-MessiaH-0 wrote:
> POP just means that this goes back to the top of the forum so people
> can read it and hopefully post intelligent comments. So guys, what
> are your views on violence in videogames? Should they be rated? Has
> a violent videogame affected you?
a violent videogame hasn't affected me, do walk the streets hitting every old lady i pass or am i sitting at my computer typing. by the way videogames help channel frustration not amplify it
> POP just means that this goes back to the top of the forum so people
> can read it and hopefully post intelligent comments. So guys, what
> are your views on violence in videogames? Should they be rated? Has
> a violent videogame affected you?
a violent videogame hasn't affected me, do walk the streets hitting every old lady i pass or am i sitting at my computer typing. by the way videogames help channel frustration not amplify it
i think a videogame is nothing with out violence because it makes the game much more intresting
Gridloch wrote:
> 0-MessiaH-0 wrote:
> POP just means that this goes back to the top of the forum so people
> can read it and hopefully post intelligent comments. So guys, what
> are your views on violence in videogames? Should they be rated?
> Has
> a violent videogame affected you?
>
> a violent videogame hasn't affected me, do walk the streets hitting
> every old lady i pass or am i sitting at my computer typing. by the
> way videogames help channel frustration not amplify it
to add to this i have never stolen a car. i prefere sitting at home on my PS2 playing computer games. by the way Summoner is cool and it's only 20 quid
> 0-MessiaH-0 wrote:
> POP just means that this goes back to the top of the forum so people
> can read it and hopefully post intelligent comments. So guys, what
> are your views on violence in videogames? Should they be rated?
> Has
> a violent videogame affected you?
>
> a violent videogame hasn't affected me, do walk the streets hitting
> every old lady i pass or am i sitting at my computer typing. by the
> way videogames help channel frustration not amplify it
to add to this i have never stolen a car. i prefere sitting at home on my PS2 playing computer games. by the way Summoner is cool and it's only 20 quid