The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
With the exception og MGS: Substance, which will be due in 2003, the other games you mentioned are due here in the Winter, so you'll have to buy the games through import if you want them during the summer.
The only game worth buying for me during the summer is Neverwinter Nights, which has just been released.
The only game worth buying for me during the summer is Neverwinter Nights, which has just been released.
Not true. We can expect things like MGS2 Substance, Stuntman, Mario Sunshine, Turok Evolution, etc over the coming months.
Well done on the win.
Well done on the win.
Well done on the win, but why are you thanking everyone that posted?`
Hate to tell you this - that was a damn good post - but Majestic crumbled due to lack of interest. While it's still up and running, it is a shadow of what Eidos had originally intended. The blurring between reality and gaming seems inevitable, but not when it has the potential to interfere with important aspects of real-life.
Imagine your boss commenting on how tired you look. When you reply: "Sorry, I was woken up by my computer game at 3 in the morning", is he going to be understanding and sympathetic? No, I didn't think so either.
Smart post though.
Imagine your boss commenting on how tired you look. When you reply: "Sorry, I was woken up by my computer game at 3 in the morning", is he going to be understanding and sympathetic? No, I didn't think so either.
Smart post though.
Yeah, you'd have to be fairly weak minded to be majorly influenced by a game.
It is indeed. Although most can get away with it for quite a long time before collapsing in a heap and rotting away in their tiny, stuffy rooms.
Page: