The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This was taken from www.Nintendofire.com,
Violence in games,
This situation in particular is bad, I won't disagree with anyone there. But I doubt that it was the content of the game that pushed the gunman to attempt to kill someone. The fact of the matter is that anyone that will shoot someone because they lost a game is insane. Insanity can twist the mind... even to the point where it breaks. This incident will probably get some parents into an uproar, so I'd like to ask that anyone who thinks that video games make people into violent monsters to read this article and others like it.
Well, here's my version of the facts. Enjoy!
Violence in entertainment has come to be one of the most popular excuses for random acts of violence.
The problem here is that people historically will blame ANYTHING or ANYONE but themselves. It's how humans interact. Like the parents of those kids who shot all of those people at Columbine High School a few years ago. "Uh... no, my kid wasn't crazy... he just played Doom... Yeah, I was a good parent. I was there for him two hours a day... what, like parenting is a full-time job?" Morons. I'm not saying that parents should go to jail for this, but somebody needs to give these people a good slap for blaming this. It's not like there wasn't violence in America before violent games and movies came around. Television didn't even exist when Americans killed millions of Indians, enslaved millions of blacks, slaughtered 700,000 of their own people in a family feud and attained the highest murder rate in the world. Fake violence a bad influence? You say that limiting fake violence will stop real violence? Here's some violence for you: How about I pistol whip some sense into you?
Don't blame Electronic Arts and ID Studios. We brought our violent tendencies from Europe and gave them our genuine American twist. For example, violent American movies such as Die Hard, Terminator and Lethal Weapon do very well in Japan, Canada and Europe. But in Japan with a population of 170 Million, there would be 800 murders, but in New York City with a population of only 8 Million, there will be about 2500 murders. There are two possibilities here. Either New Yorkers hate eachother, or America just has a higher crime rate than Japan. Japan with the same violent movies that we have has a lower crime rate. Yeah, fake violence REALLY turns people into violent killers... or hey, here's a crazy concept, maybe people can be violent sometimes. It just seems like people blame the first thing that comes to mind without really putting much thought into what it really is.
Obviously anyone who uses entertainment as a scapegoat is ignorant to the facts. Games and movies are fake. They may look real, but when a "person" is "killed" in a game or movie they don't really die. Games have animation and movies have blanks, blood packs and makeup. Anyone that is of sound mental health can see the difference between Fake and Reality. In reality, when you shoot someone they die. In a game when you shoot someone, you've only eliminated part of the AI.
I also don't understand how killing armed guards in a FPS like Agent Under Fire or Perfect Dark translates into shooting 27 people at a McDonalds or 12 people at your High School. The guards in AUF are trying to kill you, so you kill them first... at a restaurant or at school, unarmed innocent people are running frantically from you in a bid to escape. There is no similarity here. The only game franchise that you can kill unarmed people without serious consequences is the Grand Theft Auto series. There's been some hype among anti-game individuals about it's most recent installment, Grand Theft Auto 3 in which you can do just about any illegal action you can think of. Murder, grand theft, hit-and-run, bank jobs, gang warfare the list goes on.
I could understand parents being a bit uncomfortable with their kids playing this game. After all, it has an 'M' rating (17+) and is not intended for little Johnny. Some parents seem to be under the impression that they are not in control of what their kids play. This is the exact kind of mentality that started this nonsense. Some parents have convinced themselves that they don't have anything to do with what their kids get into. It almost is like they're afraid to confront their kids. This is not "the birds and the bees" ladies and gentlemen, this is something that should be relatively simple to do; yet it isn't always done. Kids without guidance are more likely to start plugging the innocent than kids whose parents play an active role in their lives.
For those of you who believe that games are inherently violent, take a look at this:
The ESRB Rating System
Of the more than 5000 products rated by the ESRB to date:
-73% have an E Rating (Everyone, ages 6 and over)
-12% have a T Rating (Teen, ages 13 and over)
-6% have an M Rating (Mature, ages 17 and over)
-3% have an AO Rating (Adults Only, ages 18 and over)
-6% have an EC Rating (Early Childhood, ages 3 and over)
79% of all games rated by the ESRB are fit for a 6-year-old. There is no graphic violence, sexual themes, bad language, drug use or anything else that could be considered a bad influence. As you can see, violent games are limited to age groups. The ratings T, M and AO are where the bad stuff is. Parents should be taking more initiative and learning what the ESRB's rating system is and what E, T, M, AO and EC mean. On the back of the game's box they have also outlined details on what the game contains. Things such as Mild Violence, Animated Violence, Gaming, Suggestive Themes, etc. are on the boxes of every game rated by them. Parents not in control? Think of it as cause and effect: Do your job and your kid won't shoot his classmates. Could it be any simpler?
I've gotten my point across. The whole argument about games and movies turning kids into violent killers is pure, homegrown BS. If people would take responsibility for their actions, or in some cases their refusal to take action, there wouldn't be absurd excuses for violence... As a matter of fact, real violence could even be reduced. But how much can anyone really expect? It's much easier to blame others when it is yourself that is to blame.
Violence in games,
This situation in particular is bad, I won't disagree with anyone there. But I doubt that it was the content of the game that pushed the gunman to attempt to kill someone. The fact of the matter is that anyone that will shoot someone because they lost a game is insane. Insanity can twist the mind... even to the point where it breaks. This incident will probably get some parents into an uproar, so I'd like to ask that anyone who thinks that video games make people into violent monsters to read this article and others like it.
Well, here's my version of the facts. Enjoy!
Violence in entertainment has come to be one of the most popular excuses for random acts of violence.
The problem here is that people historically will blame ANYTHING or ANYONE but themselves. It's how humans interact. Like the parents of those kids who shot all of those people at Columbine High School a few years ago. "Uh... no, my kid wasn't crazy... he just played Doom... Yeah, I was a good parent. I was there for him two hours a day... what, like parenting is a full-time job?" Morons. I'm not saying that parents should go to jail for this, but somebody needs to give these people a good slap for blaming this. It's not like there wasn't violence in America before violent games and movies came around. Television didn't even exist when Americans killed millions of Indians, enslaved millions of blacks, slaughtered 700,000 of their own people in a family feud and attained the highest murder rate in the world. Fake violence a bad influence? You say that limiting fake violence will stop real violence? Here's some violence for you: How about I pistol whip some sense into you?
Don't blame Electronic Arts and ID Studios. We brought our violent tendencies from Europe and gave them our genuine American twist. For example, violent American movies such as Die Hard, Terminator and Lethal Weapon do very well in Japan, Canada and Europe. But in Japan with a population of 170 Million, there would be 800 murders, but in New York City with a population of only 8 Million, there will be about 2500 murders. There are two possibilities here. Either New Yorkers hate eachother, or America just has a higher crime rate than Japan. Japan with the same violent movies that we have has a lower crime rate. Yeah, fake violence REALLY turns people into violent killers... or hey, here's a crazy concept, maybe people can be violent sometimes. It just seems like people blame the first thing that comes to mind without really putting much thought into what it really is.
Obviously anyone who uses entertainment as a scapegoat is ignorant to the facts. Games and movies are fake. They may look real, but when a "person" is "killed" in a game or movie they don't really die. Games have animation and movies have blanks, blood packs and makeup. Anyone that is of sound mental health can see the difference between Fake and Reality. In reality, when you shoot someone they die. In a game when you shoot someone, you've only eliminated part of the AI.
I also don't understand how killing armed guards in a FPS like Agent Under Fire or Perfect Dark translates into shooting 27 people at a McDonalds or 12 people at your High School. The guards in AUF are trying to kill you, so you kill them first... at a restaurant or at school, unarmed innocent people are running frantically from you in a bid to escape. There is no similarity here. The only game franchise that you can kill unarmed people without serious consequences is the Grand Theft Auto series. There's been some hype among anti-game individuals about it's most recent installment, Grand Theft Auto 3 in which you can do just about any illegal action you can think of. Murder, grand theft, hit-and-run, bank jobs, gang warfare the list goes on.
I could understand parents being a bit uncomfortable with their kids playing this game. After all, it has an 'M' rating (17+) and is not intended for little Johnny. Some parents seem to be under the impression that they are not in control of what their kids play. This is the exact kind of mentality that started this nonsense. Some parents have convinced themselves that they don't have anything to do with what their kids get into. It almost is like they're afraid to confront their kids. This is not "the birds and the bees" ladies and gentlemen, this is something that should be relatively simple to do; yet it isn't always done. Kids without guidance are more likely to start plugging the innocent than kids whose parents play an active role in their lives.
For those of you who believe that games are inherently violent, take a look at this:
The ESRB Rating System
Of the more than 5000 products rated by the ESRB to date:
-73% have an E Rating (Everyone, ages 6 and over)
-12% have a T Rating (Teen, ages 13 and over)
-6% have an M Rating (Mature, ages 17 and over)
-3% have an AO Rating (Adults Only, ages 18 and over)
-6% have an EC Rating (Early Childhood, ages 3 and over)
79% of all games rated by the ESRB are fit for a 6-year-old. There is no graphic violence, sexual themes, bad language, drug use or anything else that could be considered a bad influence. As you can see, violent games are limited to age groups. The ratings T, M and AO are where the bad stuff is. Parents should be taking more initiative and learning what the ESRB's rating system is and what E, T, M, AO and EC mean. On the back of the game's box they have also outlined details on what the game contains. Things such as Mild Violence, Animated Violence, Gaming, Suggestive Themes, etc. are on the boxes of every game rated by them. Parents not in control? Think of it as cause and effect: Do your job and your kid won't shoot his classmates. Could it be any simpler?
I've gotten my point across. The whole argument about games and movies turning kids into violent killers is pure, homegrown BS. If people would take responsibility for their actions, or in some cases their refusal to take action, there wouldn't be absurd excuses for violence... As a matter of fact, real violence could even be reduced. But how much can anyone really expect? It's much easier to blame others when it is yourself that is to blame.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
This was taken from www.Nintendofire.com,
Violence in games,
This situation in particular is bad, I won't disagree with anyone there. But I doubt that it was the content of the game that pushed the gunman to attempt to kill someone. The fact of the matter is that anyone that will shoot someone because they lost a game is insane. Insanity can twist the mind... even to the point where it breaks. This incident will probably get some parents into an uproar, so I'd like to ask that anyone who thinks that video games make people into violent monsters to read this article and others like it.
Well, here's my version of the facts. Enjoy!
Violence in entertainment has come to be one of the most popular excuses for random acts of violence.
The problem here is that people historically will blame ANYTHING or ANYONE but themselves. It's how humans interact. Like the parents of those kids who shot all of those people at Columbine High School a few years ago. "Uh... no, my kid wasn't crazy... he just played Doom... Yeah, I was a good parent. I was there for him two hours a day... what, like parenting is a full-time job?" Morons. I'm not saying that parents should go to jail for this, but somebody needs to give these people a good slap for blaming this. It's not like there wasn't violence in America before violent games and movies came around. Television didn't even exist when Americans killed millions of Indians, enslaved millions of blacks, slaughtered 700,000 of their own people in a family feud and attained the highest murder rate in the world. Fake violence a bad influence? You say that limiting fake violence will stop real violence? Here's some violence for you: How about I pistol whip some sense into you?
Don't blame Electronic Arts and ID Studios. We brought our violent tendencies from Europe and gave them our genuine American twist. For example, violent American movies such as Die Hard, Terminator and Lethal Weapon do very well in Japan, Canada and Europe. But in Japan with a population of 170 Million, there would be 800 murders, but in New York City with a population of only 8 Million, there will be about 2500 murders. There are two possibilities here. Either New Yorkers hate eachother, or America just has a higher crime rate than Japan. Japan with the same violent movies that we have has a lower crime rate. Yeah, fake violence REALLY turns people into violent killers... or hey, here's a crazy concept, maybe people can be violent sometimes. It just seems like people blame the first thing that comes to mind without really putting much thought into what it really is.
Obviously anyone who uses entertainment as a scapegoat is ignorant to the facts. Games and movies are fake. They may look real, but when a "person" is "killed" in a game or movie they don't really die. Games have animation and movies have blanks, blood packs and makeup. Anyone that is of sound mental health can see the difference between Fake and Reality. In reality, when you shoot someone they die. In a game when you shoot someone, you've only eliminated part of the AI.
I also don't understand how killing armed guards in a FPS like Agent Under Fire or Perfect Dark translates into shooting 27 people at a McDonalds or 12 people at your High School. The guards in AUF are trying to kill you, so you kill them first... at a restaurant or at school, unarmed innocent people are running frantically from you in a bid to escape. There is no similarity here. The only game franchise that you can kill unarmed people without serious consequences is the Grand Theft Auto series. There's been some hype among anti-game individuals about it's most recent installment, Grand Theft Auto 3 in which you can do just about any illegal action you can think of. Murder, grand theft, hit-and-run, bank jobs, gang warfare the list goes on.
I could understand parents being a bit uncomfortable with their kids playing this game. After all, it has an 'M' rating (17+) and is not intended for little Johnny. Some parents seem to be under the impression that they are not in control of what their kids play. This is the exact kind of mentality that started this nonsense. Some parents have convinced themselves that they don't have anything to do with what their kids get into. It almost is like they're afraid to confront their kids. This is not "the birds and the bees" ladies and gentlemen, this is something that should be relatively simple to do; yet it isn't always done. Kids without guidance are more likely to start plugging the innocent than kids whose parents play an active role in their lives.
For those of you who believe that games are inherently violent, take a look at this:
The ESRB Rating System
Of the more than 5000 products rated by the ESRB to date:
-73% have an E Rating (Everyone, ages 6 and over)
-12% have a T Rating (Teen, ages 13 and over)
-6% have an M Rating (Mature, ages 17 and over)
-3% have an AO Rating (Adults Only, ages 18 and over)
-6% have an EC Rating (Early Childhood, ages 3 and over)
79% of all games rated by the ESRB are fit for a 6-year-old. There is no graphic violence, sexual themes, bad language, drug use or anything else that could be considered a bad influence. As you can see, violent games are limited to age groups. The ratings T, M and AO are where the bad stuff is. Parents should be taking more initiative and learning what the ESRB's rating system is and what E, T, M, AO and EC mean. On the back of the game's box they have also outlined details on what the game contains. Things such as Mild Violence, Animated Violence, Gaming, Suggestive Themes, etc. are on the boxes of every game rated by them. Parents not in control? Think of it as cause and effect: Do your job and your kid won't shoot his classmates. Could it be any simpler?
I've gotten my point across. The whole argument about games and movies turning kids into violent killers is pure, homegrown BS. If people would take responsibility for their actions, or in some cases their refusal to take action, there wouldn't be absurd excuses for violence... As a matter of fact, real violence could even be reduced. But how much can anyone really expect? It's much easier to blame others when it is yourself that is to blame.
Violence in games,
This situation in particular is bad, I won't disagree with anyone there. But I doubt that it was the content of the game that pushed the gunman to attempt to kill someone. The fact of the matter is that anyone that will shoot someone because they lost a game is insane. Insanity can twist the mind... even to the point where it breaks. This incident will probably get some parents into an uproar, so I'd like to ask that anyone who thinks that video games make people into violent monsters to read this article and others like it.
Well, here's my version of the facts. Enjoy!
Violence in entertainment has come to be one of the most popular excuses for random acts of violence.
The problem here is that people historically will blame ANYTHING or ANYONE but themselves. It's how humans interact. Like the parents of those kids who shot all of those people at Columbine High School a few years ago. "Uh... no, my kid wasn't crazy... he just played Doom... Yeah, I was a good parent. I was there for him two hours a day... what, like parenting is a full-time job?" Morons. I'm not saying that parents should go to jail for this, but somebody needs to give these people a good slap for blaming this. It's not like there wasn't violence in America before violent games and movies came around. Television didn't even exist when Americans killed millions of Indians, enslaved millions of blacks, slaughtered 700,000 of their own people in a family feud and attained the highest murder rate in the world. Fake violence a bad influence? You say that limiting fake violence will stop real violence? Here's some violence for you: How about I pistol whip some sense into you?
Don't blame Electronic Arts and ID Studios. We brought our violent tendencies from Europe and gave them our genuine American twist. For example, violent American movies such as Die Hard, Terminator and Lethal Weapon do very well in Japan, Canada and Europe. But in Japan with a population of 170 Million, there would be 800 murders, but in New York City with a population of only 8 Million, there will be about 2500 murders. There are two possibilities here. Either New Yorkers hate eachother, or America just has a higher crime rate than Japan. Japan with the same violent movies that we have has a lower crime rate. Yeah, fake violence REALLY turns people into violent killers... or hey, here's a crazy concept, maybe people can be violent sometimes. It just seems like people blame the first thing that comes to mind without really putting much thought into what it really is.
Obviously anyone who uses entertainment as a scapegoat is ignorant to the facts. Games and movies are fake. They may look real, but when a "person" is "killed" in a game or movie they don't really die. Games have animation and movies have blanks, blood packs and makeup. Anyone that is of sound mental health can see the difference between Fake and Reality. In reality, when you shoot someone they die. In a game when you shoot someone, you've only eliminated part of the AI.
I also don't understand how killing armed guards in a FPS like Agent Under Fire or Perfect Dark translates into shooting 27 people at a McDonalds or 12 people at your High School. The guards in AUF are trying to kill you, so you kill them first... at a restaurant or at school, unarmed innocent people are running frantically from you in a bid to escape. There is no similarity here. The only game franchise that you can kill unarmed people without serious consequences is the Grand Theft Auto series. There's been some hype among anti-game individuals about it's most recent installment, Grand Theft Auto 3 in which you can do just about any illegal action you can think of. Murder, grand theft, hit-and-run, bank jobs, gang warfare the list goes on.
I could understand parents being a bit uncomfortable with their kids playing this game. After all, it has an 'M' rating (17+) and is not intended for little Johnny. Some parents seem to be under the impression that they are not in control of what their kids play. This is the exact kind of mentality that started this nonsense. Some parents have convinced themselves that they don't have anything to do with what their kids get into. It almost is like they're afraid to confront their kids. This is not "the birds and the bees" ladies and gentlemen, this is something that should be relatively simple to do; yet it isn't always done. Kids without guidance are more likely to start plugging the innocent than kids whose parents play an active role in their lives.
For those of you who believe that games are inherently violent, take a look at this:
The ESRB Rating System
Of the more than 5000 products rated by the ESRB to date:
-73% have an E Rating (Everyone, ages 6 and over)
-12% have a T Rating (Teen, ages 13 and over)
-6% have an M Rating (Mature, ages 17 and over)
-3% have an AO Rating (Adults Only, ages 18 and over)
-6% have an EC Rating (Early Childhood, ages 3 and over)
79% of all games rated by the ESRB are fit for a 6-year-old. There is no graphic violence, sexual themes, bad language, drug use or anything else that could be considered a bad influence. As you can see, violent games are limited to age groups. The ratings T, M and AO are where the bad stuff is. Parents should be taking more initiative and learning what the ESRB's rating system is and what E, T, M, AO and EC mean. On the back of the game's box they have also outlined details on what the game contains. Things such as Mild Violence, Animated Violence, Gaming, Suggestive Themes, etc. are on the boxes of every game rated by them. Parents not in control? Think of it as cause and effect: Do your job and your kid won't shoot his classmates. Could it be any simpler?
I've gotten my point across. The whole argument about games and movies turning kids into violent killers is pure, homegrown BS. If people would take responsibility for their actions, or in some cases their refusal to take action, there wouldn't be absurd excuses for violence... As a matter of fact, real violence could even be reduced. But how much can anyone really expect? It's much easier to blame others when it is yourself that is to blame.