The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Games such as Eidos' 'Majestic' are blurring the boundaries between what is real and what is make-believe for gamers. But, what is so wrong with that? One of the most popular reasons gamers give for playing games is the fact that they are more realistic. However, there are possible issues that the games industry may be faced with, should this trend for 'reality' games continue to be developed.
"Majestic is an episodic online entertainment experience set against the backdrop of a grand and sinister conspiracy -- an unfolding mystery adventure that uses the Internet as a canvas for its story, weaving you through both real and fictional experiences in real time" (extract from EA.com). 'Majestic' gives the gamer a new experience. It involves him/her in the real world, whilst also in the gaming world. One of the parts of the game involves you receiving a randomly-timed phone call on your own mobile - it could even happen at 3am - from a screaming woman telling you about a murder. You interact with other gamers who can either help or hither your gameplay experience. But, again, what is wrong with that? It sounds thrilling, exciting and enjoyable.
Well, the games industry could be under threat because some people are starting to ask the question, "Are games too realistic for gamers to be able to distinguish between them and the real world?" They are saying that gamers may "cross the border" between games and reality. If they forget they are no longer playing a game, then it could have serious implications on real life; the mental implications of gamers, too. Can gamers get so involved in games that they can no longer distinguish between the game and the real world? Can gamers forget that they have actually stopped playing the game?
A research took place in Swansea. It came to the conclusion that the game 'Crazy Taxi' had been related to the rise in car crime amongst juveniles. They were mostly joyriding offences, and the research shown that the juveniles were trying to re-create the game in real life. Was 'Crazy Taxi' to blame for this or was it just the minds of the juveniles? The research concluded the game was to blame. Is it really possible that games can cause gamers to do such things? Most people will remember the school shootings that took place in America. These have also been linked to games and have been blamed on the games industry. In one incident, the offender was found to have played 'Doom' and told psychologists he wanted to act out the game in real life. If real life events like this continue, then the production of good quality reality games may be threatened. Restrictions may be placed onto games and guidelines may be imposed upon game developers. The industry's existence may even be threatened. If restrictions are placed upon games, will gamers want to continue playing? And if guidance is required for developers, games may need to be certified before release. This could mean that the game will not be available to everyone. The developers could lose money and be forced to stop production.
Everyone will remember the events in America last September. Could games have been to blame for this, too? Could games have caused the biggest terrorist attack in history? The authorites pointed its finger at 'Flight Simulator 2000' and said it had a part to play in the attacks. How did a simple flight simulator cause the attacks? Apparently, the terrorists were trained to fly a plane using the game. Also, in the game, it was possible to fly directly into the World Trade Centre as real life maps were used. The terrorists would have known the area perfectly. So, can the industry be held liable for any real-life accidents, or events, subsequent to game playing?
There was a story a while back, that some may remember, which said "Nintendo killed my son." In brief, the story was about a young boy who died from an epileptic fit. She had blamed the fit on Nintendo, the company who made the console her son had been playing games on. Nintendo were found not guilty because there are ample warnings on the game's packaging and documents. With people always looking for someone to blame, what will stop them looking in the direction of this industry?
So, is this it for the industry? With games looking better, sounding better and being more original, will realistsic games become too dangerous to produce? Or are people just over-reacting? Surely, if parents are worried about the games their children play, it's their responsibility to make sure they take care of it, instead of blaming the industry.
S, do people worry about the consequences of playing realistic games too much, or are they really that dangerous?
SD
"Majestic is an episodic online entertainment experience set against the backdrop of a grand and sinister conspiracy -- an unfolding mystery adventure that uses the Internet as a canvas for its story, weaving you through both real and fictional experiences in real time" (extract from EA.com). 'Majestic' gives the gamer a new experience. It involves him/her in the real world, whilst also in the gaming world. One of the parts of the game involves you receiving a randomly-timed phone call on your own mobile - it could even happen at 3am - from a screaming woman telling you about a murder. You interact with other gamers who can either help or hither your gameplay experience. But, again, what is wrong with that? It sounds thrilling, exciting and enjoyable.
Well, the games industry could be under threat because some people are starting to ask the question, "Are games too realistic for gamers to be able to distinguish between them and the real world?" They are saying that gamers may "cross the border" between games and reality. If they forget they are no longer playing a game, then it could have serious implications on real life; the mental implications of gamers, too. Can gamers get so involved in games that they can no longer distinguish between the game and the real world? Can gamers forget that they have actually stopped playing the game?
A research took place in Swansea. It came to the conclusion that the game 'Crazy Taxi' had been related to the rise in car crime amongst juveniles. They were mostly joyriding offences, and the research shown that the juveniles were trying to re-create the game in real life. Was 'Crazy Taxi' to blame for this or was it just the minds of the juveniles? The research concluded the game was to blame. Is it really possible that games can cause gamers to do such things? Most people will remember the school shootings that took place in America. These have also been linked to games and have been blamed on the games industry. In one incident, the offender was found to have played 'Doom' and told psychologists he wanted to act out the game in real life. If real life events like this continue, then the production of good quality reality games may be threatened. Restrictions may be placed onto games and guidelines may be imposed upon game developers. The industry's existence may even be threatened. If restrictions are placed upon games, will gamers want to continue playing? And if guidance is required for developers, games may need to be certified before release. This could mean that the game will not be available to everyone. The developers could lose money and be forced to stop production.
Everyone will remember the events in America last September. Could games have been to blame for this, too? Could games have caused the biggest terrorist attack in history? The authorites pointed its finger at 'Flight Simulator 2000' and said it had a part to play in the attacks. How did a simple flight simulator cause the attacks? Apparently, the terrorists were trained to fly a plane using the game. Also, in the game, it was possible to fly directly into the World Trade Centre as real life maps were used. The terrorists would have known the area perfectly. So, can the industry be held liable for any real-life accidents, or events, subsequent to game playing?
There was a story a while back, that some may remember, which said "Nintendo killed my son." In brief, the story was about a young boy who died from an epileptic fit. She had blamed the fit on Nintendo, the company who made the console her son had been playing games on. Nintendo were found not guilty because there are ample warnings on the game's packaging and documents. With people always looking for someone to blame, what will stop them looking in the direction of this industry?
So, is this it for the industry? With games looking better, sounding better and being more original, will realistsic games become too dangerous to produce? Or are people just over-reacting? Surely, if parents are worried about the games their children play, it's their responsibility to make sure they take care of it, instead of blaming the industry.
S, do people worry about the consequences of playing realistic games too much, or are they really that dangerous?
SD
Page:
The game industry is not at an end. 30 million PS2 alone will c to that, then add on the XBox, GC, PC, and some last gen machines - plenty to choose from. People recreating the violence they see in games, is a tricky one. As for things like joy riding because they own Crazy Taxi - this is a rubbish lame excuse. Joy riding for real was about long before Crazy Taxi, and long before the games market got to the size it is today. TV and video is an much an influence as games. For the Sept 11 thing, the accuracy of the game could have proved handy, as it's a direct copy of the real thing in terms of landscape's, buildings, instruments, etc.
Konami's skateboarding game's gonna be class.
I just checked the Stuntman bit on SR, and it says the 6th of September.
:-)
:-)
SolidSnakeXXI wrote:
> Really? 'Cause I read in OPSM2 that it was out this month. The Getaway
> should be here soon too, but I'm not sure which month.
---
Take a look on SR for the game and see if it's got a release date next to it.
If not, it'll be out in the next few weeks.
> Really? 'Cause I read in OPSM2 that it was out this month. The Getaway
> should be here soon too, but I'm not sure which month.
---
Take a look on SR for the game and see if it's got a release date next to it.
If not, it'll be out in the next few weeks.
Really? 'Cause I read in OPSM2 that it was out this month. The Getaway should be here soon too, but I'm not sure which month.
ShadowDragon wrote:
> I was thanking them for their response. =o)
---
Oh right.
I thought you were one of those newbies that believed the more replies you get, the more likely you are to win GAD.
:-)
> I was thanking them for their response. =o)
---
Oh right.
I thought you were one of those newbies that believed the more replies you get, the more likely you are to win GAD.
:-)
*Thought
SolidSnakeXXI wrote:
> Not true. Stuntman should be out this month and SMS and TE are
> expected in August.
---
No, Stuntman is a September release I though.
> Not true. Stuntman should be out this month and SMS and TE are
> expected in August.
---
No, Stuntman is a September release I though.
Not true. Stuntman should be out this month and SMS and TE are expected in August.
Page: