The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Na†ßu© wrote:
> After all you dont see people rolling around in big transparent balls
> because they played it on Super Monkey Ball.
I have to agree. I mean, imagine if someone pretended to be Mario. Would they really go round speaking in an Italian accent and saving some ditsy blonde Princess who has problems with security in the castle grounds? And come on, who would believe him if he said his worst enemies were some
look-a-like with a bigger nose and some huge wierd dinosaur creature whose only downfall is his crush on the afore mentioned ditsy blonde? And most of us would think he was a crazy drug addict if he told us that some of his best friends were mushrooms.
> After all you dont see people rolling around in big transparent balls
> because they played it on Super Monkey Ball.
I have to agree. I mean, imagine if someone pretended to be Mario. Would they really go round speaking in an Italian accent and saving some ditsy blonde Princess who has problems with security in the castle grounds? And come on, who would believe him if he said his worst enemies were some
look-a-like with a bigger nose and some huge wierd dinosaur creature whose only downfall is his crush on the afore mentioned ditsy blonde? And most of us would think he was a crazy drug addict if he told us that some of his best friends were mushrooms.
It states in manuals and guides that playing for long periods of time is extremely dangerous, it's people's own fault if the choose to ignore that.
The people who die 'because' of computer games are totla t*ats. That bloke who died from a fit, was epileptic, and played on his Nintendo console for at least 7 hours every day.
There's got to be a line drawn somewhere though, else games won't be any fun. You could just go outside.
For a game to be classed as real-life like it has to have the following aspects.
-It has to be set in the present time.
-It has to have accurate locations that can be found in the world.
-The graphics have to be decent.
-The events that happen have to be the same as in the real world meaning the game would have to predict the future.
So basically I dont think a game can really accurately represent anywhere near a real world. Yes they can get close but not close enough.
Plus there are plenty of games that aren't realistic. After all you dont see people rolling around in big transparent balls because they played it on Super Monkey Ball.
-It has to be set in the present time.
-It has to have accurate locations that can be found in the world.
-The graphics have to be decent.
-The events that happen have to be the same as in the real world meaning the game would have to predict the future.
So basically I dont think a game can really accurately represent anywhere near a real world. Yes they can get close but not close enough.
Plus there are plenty of games that aren't realistic. After all you dont see people rolling around in big transparent balls because they played it on Super Monkey Ball.
Great topic. I also had that idea. Damn you!
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: