The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Someone on the radio said some time ago about how a bloke went out & raped someone because he was excited after watching an acted rape on the television.
It got me thinking about how all things are blamed for violence/criminal activities without good proof. Including videogames.
Do any of you think that playing Quake or Goldeneye would force you (or anybody for that matter) to go down to your local school with a sawn off?
Does watching Tom & Jerry cause kids to shove milk bottles down each others throats?
Would watching a violent sex act on the television give anyone enough reason to do the same to the next stranger they saw?
I believe the answer to all these questions is no. None of the above cause violence/crime. A simple answer could be made from stealing a line from The Simpsons :
"There was violence before cartoons"
As well as that, there was violence before videogames & Tv's.
While that statement doesn't exactly blow the arguement out of the water, I still think that if someone has committed a crime after playing a game, they were probably going to do it anyway. If all that was required was a trigger to set them off, it could have been anything. The TV news reports violent crime at least once a week. Newspapers do the same. Whats to say that the same person was or wasn't going to have his criminal feelings aroused by these???
I dont think outside influence is to blame for violence. I think its down to the actual person themselves. And if they are capable of doing these things, they deserve to be locked up anyway...
Lemme hear your views...
It got me thinking about how all things are blamed for violence/criminal activities without good proof. Including videogames.
Do any of you think that playing Quake or Goldeneye would force you (or anybody for that matter) to go down to your local school with a sawn off?
Does watching Tom & Jerry cause kids to shove milk bottles down each others throats?
Would watching a violent sex act on the television give anyone enough reason to do the same to the next stranger they saw?
I believe the answer to all these questions is no. None of the above cause violence/crime. A simple answer could be made from stealing a line from The Simpsons :
"There was violence before cartoons"
As well as that, there was violence before videogames & Tv's.
While that statement doesn't exactly blow the arguement out of the water, I still think that if someone has committed a crime after playing a game, they were probably going to do it anyway. If all that was required was a trigger to set them off, it could have been anything. The TV news reports violent crime at least once a week. Newspapers do the same. Whats to say that the same person was or wasn't going to have his criminal feelings aroused by these???
I dont think outside influence is to blame for violence. I think its down to the actual person themselves. And if they are capable of doing these things, they deserve to be locked up anyway...
Lemme hear your views...
Page:
"nahhh i am james bond, 007, i can kill and have a licence, watch out you fools as I will oneday shoot you with my trusty PP7."
"i am tenchu the solid stelth assassin, I can kill you without you seeing who i am."
"die evil aliens, as I am Elvis and I always have a headache and take it out on people who cant see me as I shoot them through walls"
of course games dont cause violence, as I cant see me winning a fight with a cartridge or cd as a weapon! I mean what good is that against a knife. oh look I will hit you with mario64 cart and then u will no longer be violent. I really have to stop taking whatever is in that bottle at the bottom of the garden...
"i am tenchu the solid stelth assassin, I can kill you without you seeing who i am."
"die evil aliens, as I am Elvis and I always have a headache and take it out on people who cant see me as I shoot them through walls"
of course games dont cause violence, as I cant see me winning a fight with a cartridge or cd as a weapon! I mean what good is that against a knife. oh look I will hit you with mario64 cart and then u will no longer be violent. I really have to stop taking whatever is in that bottle at the bottom of the garden...
I don't think that violent games CAUSE violence in anyway.
It certainly encourages it though, in some cases, enough to push some one over the edge
(although in these cases they were already learning over the edge due to an abused childhood or generally bad parenting!)
who might go and do something they regret...
It certainly encourages it though, in some cases, enough to push some one over the edge
(although in these cases they were already learning over the edge due to an abused childhood or generally bad parenting!)
who might go and do something they regret...
But logically, you are.
And I somehow doubt you are old enough to speak with a low voice, nevermind go to jail.
And I somehow doubt you are old enough to speak with a low voice, nevermind go to jail.
why would someone stalk you.....
Going back to the original question, "Do video games cause violence?" I'd say it wasn't the cause, but it could be the inspiration behind a violent act.
Regarding whether young children know what they're doing, that depends. My daughter is 18 months old, sometimes she might hit you with one of her toys in play. She doesn't know that she is going to hurt you, but she certainly looks sorry after we yell out in pain! I guess if you are inable to learn over time the results of your actions then you surely must be a few sandwiches short of a picnic anyway....
Regarding whether young children know what they're doing, that depends. My daughter is 18 months old, sometimes she might hit you with one of her toys in play. She doesn't know that she is going to hurt you, but she certainly looks sorry after we yell out in pain! I guess if you are inable to learn over time the results of your actions then you surely must be a few sandwiches short of a picnic anyway....
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> PseudoSavant wrote:
Sure, it is; but if this doesn't
> happen
> (which is becoming more and more often the case), what then?
Then
> surely the problem is with our social structure... and the efforts
> currently spent on putting down computer games should be spent to
> correct this situation?
The amount of money being spent 'putting down' computer games isn't nearly enough to cover such large-scale problems. After all, if it were easily fixed by tossing money at it, there wouldn't potentially be a problem for us to be discussing.
> Are the kids to remain in moral
> squallor? 'Sure, society's going
> down the toilet, but
> hey...why should I try to do anything about it?
> After all, I'm
> just a lowly developer in what's becoming the biggest
>
> money-making section of the Entertainment Industry.'
> Please
Well... pretty much.... most software houses are small
> companies with 10-15 employees... the larger companys are the
> distributors, which, since the changover from numerous small
> distributers to a few global distributors has forced them to take
> stock of their outlook... usually with more Disnesyesq results
> (unfortunatly)... (EA have started goreing down their
> titles)
True, but many of these developers are getting reputations of their own. They're not invisible in all of this. People know very well that Rare is currently a major developer, that they have some level of influence upon the industry. That's just common sense. It's like saying that Michael Bay or James Cameron doesn't have power in Hollywood since neither runs a studio.
are you honestly going to tell me that so many
> games released today *require* killing hundreds of people
> on-screen in order to be any good? If that's true, then >all these damn developers need to be canned.
But its so much
> fin :) ... Shooting/killing/maiming/etc... have pretty much been the
> life blood of computer titles since the start...
There's a large difference in the number of child gamers from the PC to the console market. And it may be fun - I won't deny that - but there are a number of games out there that are fun that don't feature that.
Although,
> looking back at speccy games, I notice that most British developers
> produced less violents games, which themselves seem to come...
> initially... from America...
Um...this comment confuses me. Are you saying that the less violent games run from America to Britain, or are you saying that American games are more violent than British ones?
I am, at heart, pretty much a
> pacafist, however I cant help but enjoy the almost comicly large
> amount of death I can reak havok upon with many games :)
I'm with you there. I can attest to the same enjoyment but, then again, we know how to process what's happening on-screen.
However
> comming up with a good Doom clone is easy... comming up with the
> sentinal.... and then marketing it... is much harder...
I'm personally getting bored with the FPS genre; it's just one clone after another.
> But
> it's still rather apparent once you refer to the
> entire
> document.
People are people... Its got to be realistally expected
> that some people will try to exploit it for their own
> goals...
insert Animal Farm reference here... (okay, okay its a
> completly different political system... but its never bad to stick
> in an Animal Farm refrence :) )
Nope. =)
Now many
> children are in the WWF, but that
> doesn't mean they won't try
> out a body slam or two on their little
> sister.
There was
> no WWF when I was young... and I still fought fist and nail with
> both my brother and sister... :)
Yes, but recently there have been several incidents in the U.S. where children were killed by their siblings while imitating moves they saw being performed on wrestling.
However, most games dont provide
> copyable action... most death is from lazers/guns/etc... even SF2 is
> fairly over the top violence... its only a limited number of games
> that provide WWF style violence...
Shooting a person with a gun isn't copyable?
However, if its considered
> valid entertainment for children on TV, why shouldnt it be
> considered valid entertainment for computer/video games?
This is the problem with minimizing one's perspective. [I'm referring to my own, not you.] My belief is that violence on-screen, be it from a movie, TV, or a videogame, may be imitated by children and lead to dire consequences. So, in your above question, the two aren't seperate but rather combined. In other words, I'm not just stating this about videogames but about all forms of entertainment. And what I would consider 'valid entertainment for children' is far from what it's considered today, unfortunately.
I generally find kids today to be much smarter than
> children were when I was young... certainly much smarter than I ever
> was... but, In presenting thins kind of argument, I've got to use my
> perspective... and those of people I knew form that
> time...
True, but being smart doesn't mean you have common sense. I find that many children nowadays are bright, but that they seem to lack even fundamental common sense. [My brother has witnesses the same phenomenon with his patients; he's a child psychologist.]
Even with poor parenting/education
> the difference between the application of fantasy and reality, when
> applied to killing another person (although not on all things) would
> be understood? ...
I wish that were true. Then again, even some adults have illustrated their inability to notice the difference. For instance, there have been several cases where college-level adults have mistaken D&D [Dungeons & Dragons] for real life and either slain or injured their friends. In such cases, the adult (having lived for so long without learning the difference) is probably mentally ill to begin with. However, I've seen children smack one another with baseball bats, then seem genuinely surprised when the other started bleeding. These are extreme cases, I will admit, but they're present nonetheless.
As I've stated, I'm not alone in the opinion
> that games
> might *potentially* influence the frequency or
> manner of violence
> enacted in real life. From what I've read,
> it appears that Shigeru
> Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima are of the
> same opinion. So I'm not the
> only one, and I certainly won't
> be the last one.
I cant help but feel the view comes more from
> Daily Mail readers and Channel4 documentary makers than from
> fact?
Um...what? I didn't refer to either in my remarks regarding Miyamoto and Kojima's opinions on the matter; I gave specific instances where such opinions have been exhibited. I got the information from no source other than the men themselves.
For the PC at
> least... there a probably more than you'd think? :)
For the PC? Hmm...Maybe, though what I find interesting is the fact that there's a difference at all. I'm not saying there isn't one. I think I agree with you on the PC games being less stocked with violence than the console ones. Perhaps that's due to the supposedly less mature nature of console gaming: Developers dumb-down products for the console probably more than they do for PC ones.
> PseudoSavant wrote:
Sure, it is; but if this doesn't
> happen
> (which is becoming more and more often the case), what then?
Then
> surely the problem is with our social structure... and the efforts
> currently spent on putting down computer games should be spent to
> correct this situation?
The amount of money being spent 'putting down' computer games isn't nearly enough to cover such large-scale problems. After all, if it were easily fixed by tossing money at it, there wouldn't potentially be a problem for us to be discussing.
> Are the kids to remain in moral
> squallor? 'Sure, society's going
> down the toilet, but
> hey...why should I try to do anything about it?
> After all, I'm
> just a lowly developer in what's becoming the biggest
>
> money-making section of the Entertainment Industry.'
> Please
Well... pretty much.... most software houses are small
> companies with 10-15 employees... the larger companys are the
> distributors, which, since the changover from numerous small
> distributers to a few global distributors has forced them to take
> stock of their outlook... usually with more Disnesyesq results
> (unfortunatly)... (EA have started goreing down their
> titles)
True, but many of these developers are getting reputations of their own. They're not invisible in all of this. People know very well that Rare is currently a major developer, that they have some level of influence upon the industry. That's just common sense. It's like saying that Michael Bay or James Cameron doesn't have power in Hollywood since neither runs a studio.
are you honestly going to tell me that so many
> games released today *require* killing hundreds of people
> on-screen in order to be any good? If that's true, then >all these damn developers need to be canned.
But its so much
> fin :) ... Shooting/killing/maiming/etc... have pretty much been the
> life blood of computer titles since the start...
There's a large difference in the number of child gamers from the PC to the console market. And it may be fun - I won't deny that - but there are a number of games out there that are fun that don't feature that.
Although,
> looking back at speccy games, I notice that most British developers
> produced less violents games, which themselves seem to come...
> initially... from America...
Um...this comment confuses me. Are you saying that the less violent games run from America to Britain, or are you saying that American games are more violent than British ones?
I am, at heart, pretty much a
> pacafist, however I cant help but enjoy the almost comicly large
> amount of death I can reak havok upon with many games :)
I'm with you there. I can attest to the same enjoyment but, then again, we know how to process what's happening on-screen.
However
> comming up with a good Doom clone is easy... comming up with the
> sentinal.... and then marketing it... is much harder...
I'm personally getting bored with the FPS genre; it's just one clone after another.
> But
> it's still rather apparent once you refer to the
> entire
> document.
People are people... Its got to be realistally expected
> that some people will try to exploit it for their own
> goals...
insert Animal Farm reference here... (okay, okay its a
> completly different political system... but its never bad to stick
> in an Animal Farm refrence :) )
Nope. =)
Now many
> children are in the WWF, but that
> doesn't mean they won't try
> out a body slam or two on their little
> sister.
There was
> no WWF when I was young... and I still fought fist and nail with
> both my brother and sister... :)
Yes, but recently there have been several incidents in the U.S. where children were killed by their siblings while imitating moves they saw being performed on wrestling.
However, most games dont provide
> copyable action... most death is from lazers/guns/etc... even SF2 is
> fairly over the top violence... its only a limited number of games
> that provide WWF style violence...
Shooting a person with a gun isn't copyable?
However, if its considered
> valid entertainment for children on TV, why shouldnt it be
> considered valid entertainment for computer/video games?
This is the problem with minimizing one's perspective. [I'm referring to my own, not you.] My belief is that violence on-screen, be it from a movie, TV, or a videogame, may be imitated by children and lead to dire consequences. So, in your above question, the two aren't seperate but rather combined. In other words, I'm not just stating this about videogames but about all forms of entertainment. And what I would consider 'valid entertainment for children' is far from what it's considered today, unfortunately.
I generally find kids today to be much smarter than
> children were when I was young... certainly much smarter than I ever
> was... but, In presenting thins kind of argument, I've got to use my
> perspective... and those of people I knew form that
> time...
True, but being smart doesn't mean you have common sense. I find that many children nowadays are bright, but that they seem to lack even fundamental common sense. [My brother has witnesses the same phenomenon with his patients; he's a child psychologist.]
Even with poor parenting/education
> the difference between the application of fantasy and reality, when
> applied to killing another person (although not on all things) would
> be understood? ...
I wish that were true. Then again, even some adults have illustrated their inability to notice the difference. For instance, there have been several cases where college-level adults have mistaken D&D [Dungeons & Dragons] for real life and either slain or injured their friends. In such cases, the adult (having lived for so long without learning the difference) is probably mentally ill to begin with. However, I've seen children smack one another with baseball bats, then seem genuinely surprised when the other started bleeding. These are extreme cases, I will admit, but they're present nonetheless.
As I've stated, I'm not alone in the opinion
> that games
> might *potentially* influence the frequency or
> manner of violence
> enacted in real life. From what I've read,
> it appears that Shigeru
> Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima are of the
> same opinion. So I'm not the
> only one, and I certainly won't
> be the last one.
I cant help but feel the view comes more from
> Daily Mail readers and Channel4 documentary makers than from
> fact?
Um...what? I didn't refer to either in my remarks regarding Miyamoto and Kojima's opinions on the matter; I gave specific instances where such opinions have been exhibited. I got the information from no source other than the men themselves.
For the PC at
> least... there a probably more than you'd think? :)
For the PC? Hmm...Maybe, though what I find interesting is the fact that there's a difference at all. I'm not saying there isn't one. I think I agree with you on the PC games being less stocked with violence than the console ones. Perhaps that's due to the supposedly less mature nature of console gaming: Developers dumb-down products for the console probably more than they do for PC ones.
PseudoSavant wrote:
Sure, it is; but if this doesn't
> happen (which is becoming more and more often the case), what then?
Then surely the problem is with our social structure... and the efforts currently spent on putting down computer games should be spent to correct this situation?
> Are the kids to remain in moral squallor? 'Sure, society's going
> down the toilet, but hey...why should I try to do anything about it?
> After all, I'm just a lowly developer in what's becoming the biggest
> money-making section of the Entertainment Industry.' Please
Well... pretty much.... most software houses are small companies with 10-15 employees... the larger companys are the distributors, which, since the changover from numerous small distributers to a few global distributors has forced them to take stock of their outlook... usually with more Disnesyesq results (unfortunatly)... (EA have started goreing down their titles)
...are
> you honestly going to tell me that so many games released today
> *require* killing hundreds of people on-screen in order to be any
> good? If that's true, then all these damn developers need to be
> canned.
But its so much fin :) ... Shooting/killing/maiming/etc... have pretty much been the life blood of computer titles since the start...
Although, looking back at speccy games, I notice that most British developers produced less violents games, which themselves seem to come... initially... from America...
I am, at heart, pretty much a pacafist, however I cant help but enjoy the almost comicly large amount of death I can reak havok upon with many games :)
However comming up with a good Doom clone is easy... comming up with the sentinal.... and then marketing it... is much harder...
> But it's still rather apparent once you refer to the
> entire document.
People are people... Its got to be realistally expected that some people will try to exploit it for their own goals...
insert Animal Farm reference here... (okay, okay its a completly different political system... but its never bad to stick in an Animal Farm refrence :) )
I
> think you read what I said wrong. I said that I DIDN'T want
> government getting involved and censoring the
> industry.
oops... probably did :)
> establishes the difference between your perspective and that of a
> child's.
A child of how old?
Now many children are in the WWF, but that
> doesn't mean they won't try out a body slam or two on their little
> sister.
There was no WWF when I was young... and I still fought fist and nail with both my brother and sister... :)
However, most games dont provide copyable action... most death is from lazers/guns/etc... even SF2 is fairly over the top violence... its only a limited number of games that provide WWF style violence...
However, if its considered valid entertainment for children on TV, why shouldnt it be considered valid entertainment for computer/video games?
Again, this is YOU. YOU aren't representative of
> children as they exist today; you were taught the difference between
> fantasy and reality.
I generally find kids today to be much smarter than children were when I was young... certainly much smarter than I ever was... but, In presenting thins kind of argument, I've got to use my perspective... and those of people I knew form that time...
Pretending to shoot someone with a toy gun is
> okay; shooting them with a real gun isn't. As I've said, there are
> numerous children nowadays who aren't being taught that, either
> through poor parenting or inspiration from friends or alternative
> sources of information [i.e. potentially games, movies, or TV
> shows].
Even with poor parenting/education the difference between the application of fantasy and reality, when applied to killing another person (although not on all things) would be understood? ...
As I've stated, I'm not alone in the opinion that games
> might *potentially* influence the frequency or manner of violence
> enacted in real life. From what I've read, it appears that Shigeru
> Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima are of the same opinion. So I'm not the
> only one, and I certainly won't be the last one.
I cant help but feel the view comes more from Daily Mail readers and Channel4 documentary makers than from fact?
And, as I've
> said before, I don't have a problem with violent games being
> around--I really don't. Just so long as there are games without
> blood and gore still being abundantly produced by the major game
> developers.
For the PC at least... there a probably more than you'd think? :)
Sure, it is; but if this doesn't
> happen (which is becoming more and more often the case), what then?
Then surely the problem is with our social structure... and the efforts currently spent on putting down computer games should be spent to correct this situation?
> Are the kids to remain in moral squallor? 'Sure, society's going
> down the toilet, but hey...why should I try to do anything about it?
> After all, I'm just a lowly developer in what's becoming the biggest
> money-making section of the Entertainment Industry.' Please
Well... pretty much.... most software houses are small companies with 10-15 employees... the larger companys are the distributors, which, since the changover from numerous small distributers to a few global distributors has forced them to take stock of their outlook... usually with more Disnesyesq results (unfortunatly)... (EA have started goreing down their titles)
...are
> you honestly going to tell me that so many games released today
> *require* killing hundreds of people on-screen in order to be any
> good? If that's true, then all these damn developers need to be
> canned.
But its so much fin :) ... Shooting/killing/maiming/etc... have pretty much been the life blood of computer titles since the start...
Although, looking back at speccy games, I notice that most British developers produced less violents games, which themselves seem to come... initially... from America...
I am, at heart, pretty much a pacafist, however I cant help but enjoy the almost comicly large amount of death I can reak havok upon with many games :)
However comming up with a good Doom clone is easy... comming up with the sentinal.... and then marketing it... is much harder...
> But it's still rather apparent once you refer to the
> entire document.
People are people... Its got to be realistally expected that some people will try to exploit it for their own goals...
insert Animal Farm reference here... (okay, okay its a completly different political system... but its never bad to stick in an Animal Farm refrence :) )
I
> think you read what I said wrong. I said that I DIDN'T want
> government getting involved and censoring the
> industry.
oops... probably did :)
> establishes the difference between your perspective and that of a
> child's.
A child of how old?
Now many children are in the WWF, but that
> doesn't mean they won't try out a body slam or two on their little
> sister.
There was no WWF when I was young... and I still fought fist and nail with both my brother and sister... :)
However, most games dont provide copyable action... most death is from lazers/guns/etc... even SF2 is fairly over the top violence... its only a limited number of games that provide WWF style violence...
However, if its considered valid entertainment for children on TV, why shouldnt it be considered valid entertainment for computer/video games?
Again, this is YOU. YOU aren't representative of
> children as they exist today; you were taught the difference between
> fantasy and reality.
I generally find kids today to be much smarter than children were when I was young... certainly much smarter than I ever was... but, In presenting thins kind of argument, I've got to use my perspective... and those of people I knew form that time...
Pretending to shoot someone with a toy gun is
> okay; shooting them with a real gun isn't. As I've said, there are
> numerous children nowadays who aren't being taught that, either
> through poor parenting or inspiration from friends or alternative
> sources of information [i.e. potentially games, movies, or TV
> shows].
Even with poor parenting/education the difference between the application of fantasy and reality, when applied to killing another person (although not on all things) would be understood? ...
As I've stated, I'm not alone in the opinion that games
> might *potentially* influence the frequency or manner of violence
> enacted in real life. From what I've read, it appears that Shigeru
> Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima are of the same opinion. So I'm not the
> only one, and I certainly won't be the last one.
I cant help but feel the view comes more from Daily Mail readers and Channel4 documentary makers than from fact?
And, as I've
> said before, I don't have a problem with violent games being
> around--I really don't. Just so long as there are games without
> blood and gore still being abundantly produced by the major game
> developers.
For the PC at least... there a probably more than you'd think? :)
Shanks said, "Well... yes, it is :) ... Isnt it the responcibility of the parent/society to decide what is acceptable for their children? ..."
Sure, it is; but if this doesn't happen (which is becoming more and more often the case), what then? Are the kids to remain in moral squallor? 'Sure, society's going down the toilet, but hey...why should I try to do anything about it? After all, I'm just a lowly developer in what's becoming the biggest money-making section of the Entertainment Industry.' Please...are you honestly going to tell me that so many games released today *require* killing hundreds of people on-screen in order to be any good? If that's true, then all these damn developers need to be canned.
"Isnt that Spidermans Maxim? :)"
Superman's too: Still doesn't make it any less applicable.
"Well theres a surprise... Imagine someone altering the significance of a non-specific statement to their own ends :)"
Well, it's fairly easy to tell that, given its context, that it didn't mean what they say it does. I agree with you; it likely should've been more specific. But it's still rather apparent once you refer to the entire document.
"Why? ... As an Adult I findi it insulting that I have an external body saying what I can and cant watch... I think I'm onld enough to make such decisions or myself..."
I think you read what I said wrong. I said that I DIDN'T want government getting involved and censoring the industry.
""As for the notion that killing in a game is very different than killing in real life: That depends, are we talking about from your perspective or from a child's?""
"??? Very questionabvle argument..."
How so? It establishes the difference between your perspective and that of a child's.
"Not many people have access firarms, nor are they often memebre of an Elite fighting force or being attacked by Aliens..."
Now many children are in the WWF, but that doesn't mean they won't try out a body slam or two on their little sister.
"I used to play war with my mates when I was a kid... and at no point did I decide that pretending to shoot my friends should ever be replaced by really shooting them...?"
Again, this is YOU. YOU aren't representative of children as they exist today; you were taught the difference between fantasy and reality. Pretending to shoot someone with a toy gun is okay; shooting them with a real gun isn't. As I've said, there are numerous children nowadays who aren't being taught that, either through poor parenting or inspiration from friends or alternative sources of information [i.e. potentially games, movies, or TV shows].
As I've stated, I'm not alone in the opinion that games might *potentially* influence the frequency or manner of violence enacted in real life. From what I've read, it appears that Shigeru Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima are of the same opinion. So I'm not the only one, and I certainly won't be the last one.
And, as I've said before, I don't have a problem with violent games being around--I really don't. Just so long as there are games without blood and gore still being abundantly produced by the major game developers.
Sure, it is; but if this doesn't happen (which is becoming more and more often the case), what then? Are the kids to remain in moral squallor? 'Sure, society's going down the toilet, but hey...why should I try to do anything about it? After all, I'm just a lowly developer in what's becoming the biggest money-making section of the Entertainment Industry.' Please...are you honestly going to tell me that so many games released today *require* killing hundreds of people on-screen in order to be any good? If that's true, then all these damn developers need to be canned.
"Isnt that Spidermans Maxim? :)"
Superman's too: Still doesn't make it any less applicable.
"Well theres a surprise... Imagine someone altering the significance of a non-specific statement to their own ends :)"
Well, it's fairly easy to tell that, given its context, that it didn't mean what they say it does. I agree with you; it likely should've been more specific. But it's still rather apparent once you refer to the entire document.
"Why? ... As an Adult I findi it insulting that I have an external body saying what I can and cant watch... I think I'm onld enough to make such decisions or myself..."
I think you read what I said wrong. I said that I DIDN'T want government getting involved and censoring the industry.
""As for the notion that killing in a game is very different than killing in real life: That depends, are we talking about from your perspective or from a child's?""
"??? Very questionabvle argument..."
How so? It establishes the difference between your perspective and that of a child's.
"Not many people have access firarms, nor are they often memebre of an Elite fighting force or being attacked by Aliens..."
Now many children are in the WWF, but that doesn't mean they won't try out a body slam or two on their little sister.
"I used to play war with my mates when I was a kid... and at no point did I decide that pretending to shoot my friends should ever be replaced by really shooting them...?"
Again, this is YOU. YOU aren't representative of children as they exist today; you were taught the difference between fantasy and reality. Pretending to shoot someone with a toy gun is okay; shooting them with a real gun isn't. As I've said, there are numerous children nowadays who aren't being taught that, either through poor parenting or inspiration from friends or alternative sources of information [i.e. potentially games, movies, or TV shows].
As I've stated, I'm not alone in the opinion that games might *potentially* influence the frequency or manner of violence enacted in real life. From what I've read, it appears that Shigeru Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima are of the same opinion. So I'm not the only one, and I certainly won't be the last one.
And, as I've said before, I don't have a problem with violent games being around--I really don't. Just so long as there are games without blood and gore still being abundantly produced by the major game developers.
PseudoSavant wrote:
It's become abundantly
> apparent to me that the Entertainment Industry as a whole has no
> intention of acting responsibly. "Give the people what they
> want" is the catchphrase to end all others, and isn't it just
> the most wonderful of them all?
Well... yes, it is :) ... Isnt it the responcibility of the parent/society to decide what is acceptable for their children? ...
That's contrary to one of the
> most understood maxims of all: Great power means great
> responsibility.
Isnt that Spidermans Maxim? :)
But this isn't the case in this industry. It
> certainly isn't in the U.S. where the First Amendment has been bled
> for all it's worth, despite the fact that they're using it in a way
> it was never intended for.
Well theres a surprise... Imagine someone altering the significance of a non-specific statement to their own ends :)
> Like I've said, I don't think government should step in to try and
> censor the gaming industry (or any other part of entertainment),
Why? ... As an Adult I findi it insulting that I have an external body saying what I can and cant watch... I think I'm onld enough to make such decisions or myself...
As for the notion that killing in
> a game is very different than killing in real life: That depends,
> are we talking about from your perspective or from a child's?
??? Very questionabvle argument...
Just
> because I've never played a game and thought, "Hey, let's go
> give this a try,"
Not many people have access firarms, nor are they often memebre of an Elite fighting force or being attacked by Aliens...
And, if its obvious there not memebers of the aforementioned figting team or alien invasion... why would it not be equally obvious that the shooting they see isnt real?
it doesn't mean that others haven't; it also
> doesn't mean that children haven't tried to mimic their videogame
> heroes probably more than they should. They may not CAUSE violence,
I used to play war with my mates when I was a kid... and at no point did I decide that pretending to shoot my friends should ever be replaced by really shooting them...?
It's become abundantly
> apparent to me that the Entertainment Industry as a whole has no
> intention of acting responsibly. "Give the people what they
> want" is the catchphrase to end all others, and isn't it just
> the most wonderful of them all?
Well... yes, it is :) ... Isnt it the responcibility of the parent/society to decide what is acceptable for their children? ...
That's contrary to one of the
> most understood maxims of all: Great power means great
> responsibility.
Isnt that Spidermans Maxim? :)
But this isn't the case in this industry. It
> certainly isn't in the U.S. where the First Amendment has been bled
> for all it's worth, despite the fact that they're using it in a way
> it was never intended for.
Well theres a surprise... Imagine someone altering the significance of a non-specific statement to their own ends :)
> Like I've said, I don't think government should step in to try and
> censor the gaming industry (or any other part of entertainment),
Why? ... As an Adult I findi it insulting that I have an external body saying what I can and cant watch... I think I'm onld enough to make such decisions or myself...
As for the notion that killing in
> a game is very different than killing in real life: That depends,
> are we talking about from your perspective or from a child's?
??? Very questionabvle argument...
Just
> because I've never played a game and thought, "Hey, let's go
> give this a try,"
Not many people have access firarms, nor are they often memebre of an Elite fighting force or being attacked by Aliens...
And, if its obvious there not memebers of the aforementioned figting team or alien invasion... why would it not be equally obvious that the shooting they see isnt real?
it doesn't mean that others haven't; it also
> doesn't mean that children haven't tried to mimic their videogame
> heroes probably more than they should. They may not CAUSE violence,
I used to play war with my mates when I was a kid... and at no point did I decide that pretending to shoot my friends should ever be replaced by really shooting them...?
Well to me he seems like a 'Yes' man.
If someone tells him to do something, he seems likely to go along with it.
I'm not even sure why I think this, it's just an impression I get.
But hey, I don't live there, so I haven't been keeping close tabs on his doings!
If someone tells him to do something, he seems likely to go along with it.
I'm not even sure why I think this, it's just an impression I get.
But hey, I don't live there, so I haven't been keeping close tabs on his doings!
Page: