The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In the early 1980's all video games were acceptable. There were no real age ratings, no restrictions and no violence. It wasn't until higher resolution graphics and more detailed video games were created that somebody hit upon the idea of violence in video games. I don't know which game sparked it off, but since then violence in video games has multiplied. In fact, there was one video game which purposefully wanted an 18 rating because of how well it would sell. You can't tell me that every single copy of GTA3 was sold to an over 18 - in fact, more likely the majority of owners are minors.
Videogames still aren't recognised as a form of entertainment. I mean, I play games and have fun, but since they're society's excuse for psychotic teens means they aren't legally classed as entertainment. I'm not bothered, but what I'm on about is how they are always, without fail to blame for every looney teen.
In 1997, there were 8 students were shot in a Kentucky school by a 14 year old. Three of them died. In the testimony, it was deduced that the shooter's experience with hanguns was limited to playing video games. One of the mothers of a victim spoke out, trying to ban the sale of mature video games. In this case, and in the Columbine shooting case, both killers were 'active video game players'. In fact, some reports had stated they'd designed their own levels on Doom!
Of course, in these two cases video games were blamed. It's only natural to point the finger of blame, but all too often people are jumping to conclusions. Sure, we can all personally blame who we want, but often it will infringe on freedom of speech. Attacks on music, movies, games and fashion always surface after attacks such as this, but just because people have their own tastes doesn't mean their wrong.
In my opinion, discriminating against people's likes is just the same as discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin, or their country of origin. It's totally biased and unreasonable. Nobody blames needles for killing the victims of Dr. Shipman, it was his doing alone. Similarly a psychotic teen may have played Duke Nukem, but Duke Nukem didn't make him psychotic.
What really strikes me though, is the rapid rise of violence in video games. In the past five years violence has grown incredibly in games, from the controversial Grand Theft Auto, to more recent shooters such as Soldier of Fortune and Turok Evolution. Technically, if video games are to blame then with the rapid growth of the game industry, contiuned violence in video games and improved graphics making violence more realistic, there should also be a massive rise in the number of video-game fuelled attacks. A tremendous rise.
This is where the theory falls flat on its face. There are millions of people who play video games, yet one or two murders have occured which can be minutely associated with games. Sure, if video games were the problem, it's one or two murders too many, but it's just scapegoating. Like Hitler blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems after the second World War. If the argument against video game violence is correct, there should surely be thousands of murders, not one or two every decade or so.
There's also the fact that I know I won't ever murder anybody. I'm a pacifist by nature, and don't like violence in any way shape or form. I don't even like violent video games, sure GTA3 is a laugh, but because it's so unrealistic I wouldn't go out and hijack a tank, running over 100 people on the way. Likewise, I don't play very many shooting games. Just because I'm a gun-crazed loony when I play doesn't mean I am in real life.
Video games are society's scapegoat. Rest assured, there will be plenty more arguments to come. Blaming violence on videogames is absurd. Videogames didn't create shootings, guns, murders or psychotic teenagers. But supposedly they did. All those things listed were invented and have happened long before the rise of videogames, yet still they're blamed. It's like blaming Driver for reckless driving, Tekken for street fighting and Legacy of Kain for cannibalism. Absolutely stupid.
Am I really meant to think that video games are teaching young, 'impressionable' children to be violent? I saw a program on TV the other day about street crime and some government initiative to tackle it. When 'interviewing' one of the offenders, it didn't have anything serious, just the offender playing Half Life on the PS2 in a darkened room, with the attention focused on the game. Don't just say it's a coincidence - they're now blaming street crime on video games.
The real irony is that most shooting games don't have you killing innocent people. You either shoot monsters, animals or obvious bad guys. Many 'realistic' shooting games punish you for shooting or harming bystanders, which puts an emphasis on letting the innocent live. That way, a psychotic killer would only use videogames as an excuse if he thought his victim was an obvious bad guy, in which case, given his mental state, he'd kill them anyway. Again, absurd. If the games didn't exist, would the killer really be less prone to kill? I don't know, but I know what the logical answer would be.
The fact is that everbody needs a scapegoat. For social pariahs, it's videogames. We all know that videogames don't turn us into killers, unless of course you're stuck playing something like Fifa for a day. Joking aside, videogames are still not as violent as many movies, yet they're still given the blame. And violent movies ARE available to anyone - on TV. Videogames aren't. So until there is proper, concrete and scientific evidence on the case against videogames, we should all go back to playing our 'horrifically violent' Doom's, SoF's, and Spyro's.
Videogames still aren't recognised as a form of entertainment. I mean, I play games and have fun, but since they're society's excuse for psychotic teens means they aren't legally classed as entertainment. I'm not bothered, but what I'm on about is how they are always, without fail to blame for every looney teen.
In 1997, there were 8 students were shot in a Kentucky school by a 14 year old. Three of them died. In the testimony, it was deduced that the shooter's experience with hanguns was limited to playing video games. One of the mothers of a victim spoke out, trying to ban the sale of mature video games. In this case, and in the Columbine shooting case, both killers were 'active video game players'. In fact, some reports had stated they'd designed their own levels on Doom!
Of course, in these two cases video games were blamed. It's only natural to point the finger of blame, but all too often people are jumping to conclusions. Sure, we can all personally blame who we want, but often it will infringe on freedom of speech. Attacks on music, movies, games and fashion always surface after attacks such as this, but just because people have their own tastes doesn't mean their wrong.
In my opinion, discriminating against people's likes is just the same as discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin, or their country of origin. It's totally biased and unreasonable. Nobody blames needles for killing the victims of Dr. Shipman, it was his doing alone. Similarly a psychotic teen may have played Duke Nukem, but Duke Nukem didn't make him psychotic.
What really strikes me though, is the rapid rise of violence in video games. In the past five years violence has grown incredibly in games, from the controversial Grand Theft Auto, to more recent shooters such as Soldier of Fortune and Turok Evolution. Technically, if video games are to blame then with the rapid growth of the game industry, contiuned violence in video games and improved graphics making violence more realistic, there should also be a massive rise in the number of video-game fuelled attacks. A tremendous rise.
This is where the theory falls flat on its face. There are millions of people who play video games, yet one or two murders have occured which can be minutely associated with games. Sure, if video games were the problem, it's one or two murders too many, but it's just scapegoating. Like Hitler blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems after the second World War. If the argument against video game violence is correct, there should surely be thousands of murders, not one or two every decade or so.
There's also the fact that I know I won't ever murder anybody. I'm a pacifist by nature, and don't like violence in any way shape or form. I don't even like violent video games, sure GTA3 is a laugh, but because it's so unrealistic I wouldn't go out and hijack a tank, running over 100 people on the way. Likewise, I don't play very many shooting games. Just because I'm a gun-crazed loony when I play doesn't mean I am in real life.
Video games are society's scapegoat. Rest assured, there will be plenty more arguments to come. Blaming violence on videogames is absurd. Videogames didn't create shootings, guns, murders or psychotic teenagers. But supposedly they did. All those things listed were invented and have happened long before the rise of videogames, yet still they're blamed. It's like blaming Driver for reckless driving, Tekken for street fighting and Legacy of Kain for cannibalism. Absolutely stupid.
Am I really meant to think that video games are teaching young, 'impressionable' children to be violent? I saw a program on TV the other day about street crime and some government initiative to tackle it. When 'interviewing' one of the offenders, it didn't have anything serious, just the offender playing Half Life on the PS2 in a darkened room, with the attention focused on the game. Don't just say it's a coincidence - they're now blaming street crime on video games.
The real irony is that most shooting games don't have you killing innocent people. You either shoot monsters, animals or obvious bad guys. Many 'realistic' shooting games punish you for shooting or harming bystanders, which puts an emphasis on letting the innocent live. That way, a psychotic killer would only use videogames as an excuse if he thought his victim was an obvious bad guy, in which case, given his mental state, he'd kill them anyway. Again, absurd. If the games didn't exist, would the killer really be less prone to kill? I don't know, but I know what the logical answer would be.
The fact is that everbody needs a scapegoat. For social pariahs, it's videogames. We all know that videogames don't turn us into killers, unless of course you're stuck playing something like Fifa for a day. Joking aside, videogames are still not as violent as many movies, yet they're still given the blame. And violent movies ARE available to anyone - on TV. Videogames aren't. So until there is proper, concrete and scientific evidence on the case against videogames, we should all go back to playing our 'horrifically violent' Doom's, SoF's, and Spyro's.
Strafex wrote:
> Games are scapegoats.
>
> Holding a rumbling control pad is NOTHING compared to holding a real
> gun.
> Training kids to use real guns is the really stupid thing to do.
Next thing we know, the Al Queda will have used 'Microsoft Flight Simulator' in preparation for September the 11th, Saddam Hussein trains his men using Half-Life and MOH.
Oh well. When will they learn?
> Games are scapegoats.
>
> Holding a rumbling control pad is NOTHING compared to holding a real
> gun.
> Training kids to use real guns is the really stupid thing to do.
Next thing we know, the Al Queda will have used 'Microsoft Flight Simulator' in preparation for September the 11th, Saddam Hussein trains his men using Half-Life and MOH.
Oh well. When will they learn?
Games are scapegoats.
Holding a rumbling control pad is NOTHING compared to holding a real gun.
Training kids to use real guns is the really stupid thing to do.
Besides, all of these "violent" games have a red certificate.
If the parents (who most likely buy these games for their kids) can't stop their children from playing games/watching films that are unsuitable for them, then that's THEIR fault, not the games industries!
Holding a rumbling control pad is NOTHING compared to holding a real gun.
Training kids to use real guns is the really stupid thing to do.
Besides, all of these "violent" games have a red certificate.
If the parents (who most likely buy these games for their kids) can't stop their children from playing games/watching films that are unsuitable for them, then that's THEIR fault, not the games industries!
In the early 1980's all video games were acceptable. There were no real age ratings, no restrictions and no violence. It wasn't until higher resolution graphics and more detailed video games were created that somebody hit upon the idea of violence in video games. I don't know which game sparked it off, but since then violence in video games has multiplied. In fact, there was one video game which purposefully wanted an 18 rating because of how well it would sell. You can't tell me that every single copy of GTA3 was sold to an over 18 - in fact, more likely the majority of owners are minors.
Videogames still aren't recognised as a form of entertainment. I mean, I play games and have fun, but since they're society's excuse for psychotic teens means they aren't legally classed as entertainment. I'm not bothered, but what I'm on about is how they are always, without fail to blame for every looney teen.
In 1997, there were 8 students were shot in a Kentucky school by a 14 year old. Three of them died. In the testimony, it was deduced that the shooter's experience with hanguns was limited to playing video games. One of the mothers of a victim spoke out, trying to ban the sale of mature video games. In this case, and in the Columbine shooting case, both killers were 'active video game players'. In fact, some reports had stated they'd designed their own levels on Doom!
Of course, in these two cases video games were blamed. It's only natural to point the finger of blame, but all too often people are jumping to conclusions. Sure, we can all personally blame who we want, but often it will infringe on freedom of speech. Attacks on music, movies, games and fashion always surface after attacks such as this, but just because people have their own tastes doesn't mean their wrong.
In my opinion, discriminating against people's likes is just the same as discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin, or their country of origin. It's totally biased and unreasonable. Nobody blames needles for killing the victims of Dr. Shipman, it was his doing alone. Similarly a psychotic teen may have played Duke Nukem, but Duke Nukem didn't make him psychotic.
What really strikes me though, is the rapid rise of violence in video games. In the past five years violence has grown incredibly in games, from the controversial Grand Theft Auto, to more recent shooters such as Soldier of Fortune and Turok Evolution. Technically, if video games are to blame then with the rapid growth of the game industry, contiuned violence in video games and improved graphics making violence more realistic, there should also be a massive rise in the number of video-game fuelled attacks. A tremendous rise.
This is where the theory falls flat on its face. There are millions of people who play video games, yet one or two murders have occured which can be minutely associated with games. Sure, if video games were the problem, it's one or two murders too many, but it's just scapegoating. Like Hitler blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems after the second World War. If the argument against video game violence is correct, there should surely be thousands of murders, not one or two every decade or so.
There's also the fact that I know I won't ever murder anybody. I'm a pacifist by nature, and don't like violence in any way shape or form. I don't even like violent video games, sure GTA3 is a laugh, but because it's so unrealistic I wouldn't go out and hijack a tank, running over 100 people on the way. Likewise, I don't play very many shooting games. Just because I'm a gun-crazed loony when I play doesn't mean I am in real life.
Video games are society's scapegoat. Rest assured, there will be plenty more arguments to come. Blaming violence on videogames is absurd. Videogames didn't create shootings, guns, murders or psychotic teenagers. But supposedly they did. All those things listed were invented and have happened long before the rise of videogames, yet still they're blamed. It's like blaming Driver for reckless driving, Tekken for street fighting and Legacy of Kain for cannibalism. Absolutely stupid.
Am I really meant to think that video games are teaching young, 'impressionable' children to be violent? I saw a program on TV the other day about street crime and some government initiative to tackle it. When 'interviewing' one of the offenders, it didn't have anything serious, just the offender playing Half Life on the PS2 in a darkened room, with the attention focused on the game. Don't just say it's a coincidence - they're now blaming street crime on video games.
The real irony is that most shooting games don't have you killing innocent people. You either shoot monsters, animals or obvious bad guys. Many 'realistic' shooting games punish you for shooting or harming bystanders, which puts an emphasis on letting the innocent live. That way, a psychotic killer would only use videogames as an excuse if he thought his victim was an obvious bad guy, in which case, given his mental state, he'd kill them anyway. Again, absurd. If the games didn't exist, would the killer really be less prone to kill? I don't know, but I know what the logical answer would be.
The fact is that everbody needs a scapegoat. For social pariahs, it's videogames. We all know that videogames don't turn us into killers, unless of course you're stuck playing something like Fifa for a day. Joking aside, videogames are still not as violent as many movies, yet they're still given the blame. And violent movies ARE available to anyone - on TV. Videogames aren't. So until there is proper, concrete and scientific evidence on the case against videogames, we should all go back to playing our 'horrifically violent' Doom's, SoF's, and Spyro's.
Videogames still aren't recognised as a form of entertainment. I mean, I play games and have fun, but since they're society's excuse for psychotic teens means they aren't legally classed as entertainment. I'm not bothered, but what I'm on about is how they are always, without fail to blame for every looney teen.
In 1997, there were 8 students were shot in a Kentucky school by a 14 year old. Three of them died. In the testimony, it was deduced that the shooter's experience with hanguns was limited to playing video games. One of the mothers of a victim spoke out, trying to ban the sale of mature video games. In this case, and in the Columbine shooting case, both killers were 'active video game players'. In fact, some reports had stated they'd designed their own levels on Doom!
Of course, in these two cases video games were blamed. It's only natural to point the finger of blame, but all too often people are jumping to conclusions. Sure, we can all personally blame who we want, but often it will infringe on freedom of speech. Attacks on music, movies, games and fashion always surface after attacks such as this, but just because people have their own tastes doesn't mean their wrong.
In my opinion, discriminating against people's likes is just the same as discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin, or their country of origin. It's totally biased and unreasonable. Nobody blames needles for killing the victims of Dr. Shipman, it was his doing alone. Similarly a psychotic teen may have played Duke Nukem, but Duke Nukem didn't make him psychotic.
What really strikes me though, is the rapid rise of violence in video games. In the past five years violence has grown incredibly in games, from the controversial Grand Theft Auto, to more recent shooters such as Soldier of Fortune and Turok Evolution. Technically, if video games are to blame then with the rapid growth of the game industry, contiuned violence in video games and improved graphics making violence more realistic, there should also be a massive rise in the number of video-game fuelled attacks. A tremendous rise.
This is where the theory falls flat on its face. There are millions of people who play video games, yet one or two murders have occured which can be minutely associated with games. Sure, if video games were the problem, it's one or two murders too many, but it's just scapegoating. Like Hitler blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems after the second World War. If the argument against video game violence is correct, there should surely be thousands of murders, not one or two every decade or so.
There's also the fact that I know I won't ever murder anybody. I'm a pacifist by nature, and don't like violence in any way shape or form. I don't even like violent video games, sure GTA3 is a laugh, but because it's so unrealistic I wouldn't go out and hijack a tank, running over 100 people on the way. Likewise, I don't play very many shooting games. Just because I'm a gun-crazed loony when I play doesn't mean I am in real life.
Video games are society's scapegoat. Rest assured, there will be plenty more arguments to come. Blaming violence on videogames is absurd. Videogames didn't create shootings, guns, murders or psychotic teenagers. But supposedly they did. All those things listed were invented and have happened long before the rise of videogames, yet still they're blamed. It's like blaming Driver for reckless driving, Tekken for street fighting and Legacy of Kain for cannibalism. Absolutely stupid.
Am I really meant to think that video games are teaching young, 'impressionable' children to be violent? I saw a program on TV the other day about street crime and some government initiative to tackle it. When 'interviewing' one of the offenders, it didn't have anything serious, just the offender playing Half Life on the PS2 in a darkened room, with the attention focused on the game. Don't just say it's a coincidence - they're now blaming street crime on video games.
The real irony is that most shooting games don't have you killing innocent people. You either shoot monsters, animals or obvious bad guys. Many 'realistic' shooting games punish you for shooting or harming bystanders, which puts an emphasis on letting the innocent live. That way, a psychotic killer would only use videogames as an excuse if he thought his victim was an obvious bad guy, in which case, given his mental state, he'd kill them anyway. Again, absurd. If the games didn't exist, would the killer really be less prone to kill? I don't know, but I know what the logical answer would be.
The fact is that everbody needs a scapegoat. For social pariahs, it's videogames. We all know that videogames don't turn us into killers, unless of course you're stuck playing something like Fifa for a day. Joking aside, videogames are still not as violent as many movies, yet they're still given the blame. And violent movies ARE available to anyone - on TV. Videogames aren't. So until there is proper, concrete and scientific evidence on the case against videogames, we should all go back to playing our 'horrifically violent' Doom's, SoF's, and Spyro's.