gbadev.org forum archive

On the news they talk about violent video games how it affects a child in a negative way especially how games are more realistic now. One game that is being made or I think out is scar face and the host of the show said that the game designers should be arrested and be given psychological evaluation. lol

Games are time consuming. It should have something to give to people.

I know some teachers that tell me that the parents have trouble getting their kids to study since they are always playing games and kid?s tests scores are going down. Maybe many game designers are proud that they make addicting negative games and they lost the original point of games in general. Games should not be an addicting drug to hurt you but help you and so far it does not seem to help many children but hurt them. What is the difference from a drug dealer and a misguided game designer? Both of them make the person addicted and distract them from doing more productive things.

Like historians say that people have not changed in how barbaric they are from the roman gladiator days. Top military personal say that the methods they use to desensitize the soldiers are used in video games.

"fundamental motivation for all game-playing is to learn." "Games are thus the most ancient and time-honored vehicle for education. They are the original educational technology, the natural one,"
http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter2.html

Some may think they find meaning in the mindless violent games but so do drugs have a meaning to the people that take it. Everything should be in moderation and no clear balance in video games.

How ill games look like 10 years from now? Maybe you might find games called rape when you rape people. Why not since some games out now are just as bad. It is a slippery slope and the things you think are ok were not 20 years ago and what you think is bad will be ok in 10-20 years and what your kids think it bad will be ok another 10 years after that.

To take away the original educational point of games and replacing it with pure violence that has no meaning is kind of messed up. I do not think anyone will pay attention since so many have been addicted too much to love what they play they will try to say anything to validate what they do.

I guess historians are right.

Well said.
_________________
www.natrium42.com

Kid next door just got GTA - San Andreas. Kid's at most 12 years old.

Strangely, he won't get fucked up for live by playing the game.

He already was.

Quote:

Kid next door just got GTA - San Andreas. Kid's at most 12 years old.

For reals, my 8 yr old cousin was askin if I had GTA3... and I don't. His sister has it, and they play it I suppose... stupid sister and her influence.

So, what I'm saying, mostly.. kids play these violent games, not because they choose to, but because they are influenced to buy either thier peers, family members, or by the almighty TV. Kids just can't go and buy a M rated game anymore, so they must get the game another way, and thats where alot of parents just slack off and go and buy it for em cause they want it, or don't really care what thier kids do for most of thier time I guess.

Keep in mind that it is not the game designers to blame. The correct business decision is always to maximize profits. That may mean putting morals ahead of profits. As far as the business is concerned, it really doesn't matter what you are selling or what people do with your product after they buy it.

EA will not publish games with 'mature content' as it were. They believe that they will lose their existing costomer base if they publish such games. That is business decision on EA's part, not a moral decision. I don't agree with them- I don't think they'll lose their existing customer base if they publish games with 'mature content', but I'll admit that I won't touch GTA or anything else Rockstar Games puts out.

Side note: Rockstar Games gamasutra posting for an artist basically amounted to 'fantasy and sci-fi artists go to hell, we only want artists that draw the here and now.' I was not impressed.

-Brendan

My view is that it's not the designers/programmers fault AT ALL! I'm an adult and should be able to play whatever game I want. If I want to gun down a rival gang in a video game, I should be able to.

Now, my answer (which is my answer to almost ALL child releated discussions).. It's the parents fault. If they could take to minutes out of their busy life to spend time with their kids, we wouldn't have this problem. And if you want to say "so and so influenced them" you can say the same thing for the "infuancer"s parents. If they would have taken the time to teach them it's not OK for an 8 year old to play these games, therefor we don't let them or show it to them.

So what some people are saying is that since the parents are busy it is ok to exploit the kids to play games that will negatively affect them? Now that is twisted and people that think like that are no better than criminals.

Ever hear that money is the root to all evil? Putting money in front of morality is like selling drugs since that makes a profit but not morally right to hurt others with drugs. People should take responsibility on both side being the people that make money off the game and the buyer. What is next to justify selling WMD to terrorist states and say they are mature enough to use them? If you sell negative things it will come back to bite you in one way of another which so many do not see things in the long run since they have money in front of their face to see it. It seems that giving designers responsibly to make good games is like pretending that drug dealers will have responsibility.

Also the other notion that if you don?t like it doesn?t buy it is kind of silly since you got an entire game system and all it has is violence. The kids will grow up having problems and the designers will keep lying to themselves that they are not to blame and that they can do anything and that only the parents are to blame and that is a joke. Parents are not like how they use to be and they both work unlike before, more bad influences unlike before, and the list goes on how society tires to sell crap and the parents do not have time to know or deal with everything. The means justify the ends and not the other way around.

The point is that you can not blame 1 side since both sides help cause problems. The parents should take responsibility but the game companies should not undermine the parent?s authority to show these games are ok to play with their marketing to persuade. Marketing can persuade everyone and like the saying goes a sucker is born every minute and it is the game company that should stop the relentless attack to make crap all the time. Can someone keep deceiving and bombarding you all the time and sell you something that isn?t good 24/7?

Even if you are against it is annoying to see it all the time. What next a book on bestiality being plastered all over billboards, commercials, news papers, etc and tell people they have a right not to do it? We have a right not to see crap bombarded. Do you know why they bombard people with junk all the time? Because it does affect people if you keep persisting which psychiatrists know this and marketing uses this against you. You can not expect everyone to fight an endless war and the companies should help since being a parent, a teacher, or whatever to help the child be better is hard work. Even Joe camel was taken off cigarettes for a reason, and some seem to want to go backwards and maybe sell condoms to 1st graders and show adult content to them all the time and say the parents are to blame. Even the fact that parents are supposed to know better does not stick since we have some people that think it is ok.

If you are going to be a designer try to be a good designer to make good games for everyone, than a crappy designer to make violent games for adults which target the youth. Taking cheep shots only makes you cheap, so I would expect people take the time and make something good and if they can not then do something else.

good luck

Quote:

designers will keep lying to themselves that they are not to blame and that they can do anything and that only the parents are to blame and that is a joke. Parents are not like how they use to be and they both work unlike before, more bad influences unlike before, and the list goes on how society tires to sell crap and the parents do not have time to know or deal with everything. The means justify the ends and not the other way around.

I'm not trying to make excuses for game designers, but you don't really address my first question. Me, being an adult of sound mind (which I'm sure can be disputed) would like to gun down a rival gang. Expoit the kids? What are you talking about? How do you make a commercial for a game that is rated for adults and not "exploit the kids" as you say? It's a VIDEO GAME! People instantly think.. If it's a video game, it must be for kids.

Who's talking about money? I fully agree with your statement. But, I like to relax and play video games from time to time. Some of us actually fallow laws, and will never get to pimp out hoes in real life.. so I like to do it on video games. The only time money is involved is when I beat it out of the hooker I just paid! :P

Only violence is available? That must be because it's all you look for. I guess it's the same reason people get drunk or do drugs.. Because they can blame it on the beer commercials and peer pressure. Get a backbone and stand up for yourself. JUST SAY NO!

Now, why is it that I should loose that right, because a bunch of horny parents that don't give a damn about their children need the gaming industry to put out software that is "ok" for them because 1) they don't take the time to talk to their child to even know they are playing the game, 2) don't care if they play the game and are influenced by it, or 3) don't take the time to realize what is available in the gaming industry (you know, the old head in the sand) and watch what their child buys.

How hard is it to pick up a game case and look at the M for mature and think.. Gee.. My 12 year old probably shouldn't be playing this game?

"parents do not have time to "

What? More like parents don't want to take the time!!

And to argue that todays sociaty is made up of a bunch of useless parents (Which, I will agree with) and state that it is the reason the gaming industry should try to raise a child because the parents aren't, is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Let me tell you this. I have an 11 month old son. I can tell you right now that I will know what he's doing, what he's playing, etc. Have you ever looked at the price of daycare? People are sending their children to daycare, working a job that only pays enough for the daycare, and still do it. You know why? Because they don't want to raise their own child!!!! They want everyone else to do it for them. They'd rather go to work then change a diaper, wipe a snotty nose, or listen to a baby cry. I was around to see my sons first steps (or second, depending on what the definition of "first step" is.) See him play, and play with him. I understand that when he's able to hang out with me while I'm on the computer, GTA, ET, and all the FPS's will go in the trash and be removed from my computers. That when he's old enough to use the computer that they will all have parental software installed to block the crap that is out here. And you know what.. Before I send him off to the mall with Johnny's parents, I'm going to take the time to meet them, maybe even go along with them to see what they are like, not just send him off, cause then I don't have to deal with him for a few hours.

Some good thoughts here. I am personally concerned about laws they are passing that restricts video games. I don't mind preventing under-age sales of mature titles, but banning them outright is ludicrous. I don't think they could do the same thing with violent/abusive music, writing, or art.

My own interesting experience: my upstairs apartment neighbor has all the GTAs. He has 3 kids, all between the ages of 3-7. I would say those kids are very impressionable right now... I don't know if they're playing GTA at all but when I visit them their father pulls out San Andreas and shows it off.

I really do think that some violent video games, while not brainwashing children to adopt violence, certainly influence their behaviors. You can't tell me that a 1,000 kids that play Pokemon are going to be more violent than 1,000 kids that play GTA.

Even so, I abhor legislation that bans these games. Just put the choice in the hands of parents. Yeah, a lot of those parents will be totally stupid and show their 3 year old how to beat people on the street with a baseball bat, or gun down police officers. It just seems like the logical solution though.
_________________
Work in progress: Dual-Soft.com

Lol - when my youngest sister was doing pokemon attacks at me when playing with her by pointing at me and saying "Razor Leaf", it contrasts well to her pointing at me and saying "Die B@#$%" :)

Two wrongs don?t make a right. You are an adult of sound mind have the right to play it. And so do other have the right to drink them selves to death. These games should not be advertised in front of kids. You do not see bill boards or commercials that show porno on shows that kids watch. You are an adult and you can play the games but weather it is right for you to play it is another topic. Violent video games will not affect an adult the same degree as it does a child. Not all moves are for kids and not all games are for kids.

The point is that companies want to sell these violent games to kids and some game companies admit that they do target kids under 18 despite the rating which like I said they are not better than drug dealers. Kids are still learning and growing and the companies try to manipulate them. Game companies are trying to take away the rating system and say that the restricting games to kids is taking away their 1st amendment rights. Maybe some might agree to this twisted view and you might need physiological help. With this kind of twisted thinking the skies the limit on perversions, and things will bend more and more to the point that it is legal to sell future games that make you screw animals, kill your fellow students, teach you how to kill and make poison, give the # to the Whitehorse to harass the president, glorifying drugs to persuade kids its all good. If you want to do everything that the game companies want then you might as well take away the rating system so they can sell those games to kids since that is what they want. If you know that someone is trying to harm your kids intentionally then why do you trust, and why do you fund them for them to get more resources so that they find a way to do so? It seems that even adults fail on the concept of principals. The fact is that games spend billions of dollars to target kids especially the games that they are not allowed to play and they know it works and they do not care. The companies have the right to do it since they are in it for the money and not for you which is why the future of game designers should use real talent to make positive games and if they can not and want to use a gun in a fist fight to win then we know they are not good designers.

Designers can not just let all the responsibility fall onto the parents since they already have enough that goes against them from bad movies, music, food, financial, social, etc. Even the best parent can not protect their kids from everything. If you want to blame only parents then you are ignoring a wide range of facts. You can not blame the majority of parents that the kids in school are more mentally challenged than other generations despite so much technology to help them. Games are not the main problem but add on to the problem. Many parents do talk to the child but games are intended to be addicting, and many parents complain to the teacher that they can not get their kids off the video games.

Even if parents do not let the kids buy the game the kids still can no to another persons home and play the game, go out and rent the game, watch older sibling or parent play the game which they might not play it but they are watching it, and more. You attack the parents that do not take the time which I agree with you that they should do something but many do not and that will hurt you. You also ignore the fact that many parents do not want their kids to play those games and restrict them but kids always find a way around it.

Ever hear the saying it takes a community to raise a child? Well it is true since for over 2000 years it took communities to raise kids and not just one parent. This notion of parents doing everything is a new concept within the last 100 years around. If the gamming community does not care about the child then they are not part of the community that cares for kids or cares to help parents. Like the other saying goes either you are with us or against us. If the game company does not want to be part of the solution then they are part of the problem. The problem now is that many in the community are deranged and you don?t want them to look after your kids and not you have to look out for everyone.

Also many parents do not want their kids in day care but many have to work since some are single mothers or both work to make ends meat. Also the fact that you get others like the game industry that does not help family by giving information that says that day care benefits kids more and that kids get better grades in school which some buy this. Too much information and you expect the parent to know everything. If you feel you can see everything of what the kids is doing 24/7 then you are an exception that works less than the average person which gets paid 30thou a year. Another fact is this democracy since the people govern but there is not true democracy and if there was violent video games would not even be around, but the reality is that companies rule which pay politicians to be in office so that they help them out. Two wrongs don?t make a right.

Also some funny replies. ?pointing at me and saying "Razor Leaf", it contrasts well to her pointing at me and saying "Die B@#$%"? LOL

warsong wrote:

Two wrongs don?t make a right. You are an adult of sound mind have the right to play it. And so do other have the right to drink them selves to death.

I see where you are coming from, but I think you've missed the point. Because adults expected to be able to take care of themselves, society at large does not care about what adults do in their spare time, within legal and moral boundries. Actually, society at large does not really care what children do in their free time- the legal and moral boundries are stricter. Evidently we hope that they will grow up to be upstanding citizens.

If an adult only deals with non child friendly content, there is probably something wrong with them. (Ie. my highschool English teacher- every lesson sex, drugs or violence. It got boring really fast.) However, adults at times, for whatever reasons, wish to deal with content that is considered inappropriate for children, which is fine. To imply that playing a game containing mature content is the same as suicide is just plain silly.

warsong wrote:

These games should not be advertised in front of kids.

Agree.

warsong wrote:

You do not see bill boards or commercials that show porno on shows that kids watch.

That's not their target audience. Advertising there would hurt their business.

warsong wrote:

You are an adult and you can play the games but weather it is right for you to play it is another topic.

I have a feeling we should avoid that topic.

warsong wrote:

Violent video games will not affect an adult the same degree as it does a child.

Sure. The consequences of children playing "violent games" are still in debate.

warsong wrote:

Not all moves are for kids and not all games are for kids.

In general, most media has a target age group. Media aimed at small children may also be aimed their parents- one of the reasons Sesame Street was so popular. (Jim Henson was a genius.) Next is non reading intesive media for young children. Children's media that requires reading, adolescent media, etc, etc.

My 15 year old sister is not interested in Put Put Goes to the Moon. My 4 year old cousin lacks the reading skills to play Pokemon. Her older sister loves Pokemon, but would probably be bored by some of the games my sister plays (Harvest Moon).

warsong wrote:

The point is that companies want to sell these violent games to kids

This is bogus. 99% of companies exist to make a profit. The probably have a mission statement, but I doubt that there is a single company out there with the mission statement "Sell violent content to children".

warsong wrote:

and some game companies admit that they do target kids under 18 despite the rating

There is a market there. Kids, especially teenagers want to be adults. What is cooler than owning (and playing) a game that only your older brother is allowed to play. (I should go harass my brother's friends if they are playing GTA, etc.)

warsong wrote:

which like I said they are not better than drug dealers. Kids are still learning and growing and the companies try to manipulate them.

I see where you are coming from, but "companies" are not trying to manipulate anyone. They capitalizing on the fact that kids want to grow up.

warsong wrote:

Game companies are trying to take away the rating system and say that the restricting games to kids is taking away their 1st amendment rights.

I disbelieve. Please support this statement. The rating system helps sell mature games to interested kids. Owning an "M" rated game is a certification that you own a game only your older brother is allowed to play.

warsong wrote:

Maybe some might agree to... *SNIP rant*
If you want to do everything that the game companies want then you might as well take away the rating system so they can sell those games to kids since that is what they want.

Companies exist to make money. They want you to give them money. Nothing more. Taking away the rating system would not help them earn more money.

warsong wrote:

If you know that someone is trying to harm your kids intentionally then why do you trust, and why do you fund them for them to get more resources so that they find a way to do so?

I doubt there is a company out there with the mission statement "harm children". If you don't like the way a particular company operates, feel free to boycott them. I boycott Rockstar games. A friend boycotts EA. (I'll admit that I'm yet to meet a person who boycotts chocolate because it is farmed by people that amount to slaves.)

warsong wrote:

The fact is that games spend billions of dollars to target kids especially the games that they are not allowed to play and they know it works and they do not care.

Kids want to grow up. Nothing wrong with that. It is the responsibility of parental guardians to moderate when and how their kids grow up. When my younger sister was in middle, one of my sister's friends couldn't sleep over because my sister had an older brother (me). "Something might happen." I'm sure my sister and her friend thought that was really stupid, but quite frankly that strikes me a very responsible position to take. Her parents hope something happens. They just want it to happen after she's married.

warsong wrote:

The companies have the right to do it since they are in it for the money and not for you

Companies that do not cater to their customers go bankrupt. Companies trade cash for goods and/or services because it is really difficult to collect money and give nothing in return. Even churches provide a service, although giving money is optional.

warsong wrote:

which is why the future of game designers should use real talent to make positive games

Note should. Sure.

warsong wrote:

and if they can not and want to use a gun in a fist fight to win then we know they are not good designers.

How can any of this be described as using a gun in a fist fight. (Iteresting analogy given that "voilent games" are being discussed.) If "positive games" don't sell, they wont be produced.

warsong wrote:

Designers can not just let all the responsibility fall onto the parents since they already have enough that goes against them from bad movies, music, food, financial, social, etc.

Who else should the responsibilty fall on? Parents are responsible for raising their kids. Your kids might think it's stupid, but a parent can make it very difficult for their kid to see a "mature" movie, or listen to "mature" music. Financial? Even if you are poor you can take the time to talk to your kids and see what they are doing. Social? Not all people that live in a bad neighborhood are evil. Some of them are really nice. You can meet your kid's parents and see what they are into. Saying "I live in a bad neighborhood, so my kids are doomed. I give up." strikes me as really irresponsible. Food? I don't think any of this has anything to do with being lactose intolerant. I know plenty of people who manage to cater to their kids' dietary restrictions and keep an eye on what their kids are doing.

warsong wrote:

Even the best parent can not protect their kids from everything.

No, they can't. Kids will grown up. (People who don't want their babies to grow up own pets.)

warsong wrote:

If you want to blame only parents then you are ignoring a wide range of facts. You can not blame the majority of parents that the kids in school are more mentally challenged than other generations despite so much technology to help them.

Let's save the school system for another day. It not directly related to topic being discussed.

warsong wrote:

Games are not the main problem but add on to the problem.

What is "the problem"?

warsong wrote:

Many parents do talk to the child but games are intended to be addicting, and many parents complain to the teacher that they can not get their kids off the video games.

Games are intended to be interesting, not addicting. Boring games wouldn't sell. No company wants to release the game nobody will stop playing. They want the player to buy the next title.

warsong wrote:

Even if parents do not let the kids buy the game the kids still can no to another persons home and play the game,

Depends on the parents. A parent can disallow their kid from going to a particular friend's house. Up to a certain age, the kid will usually listen.

warsong wrote:

go out and rent the game,

And play it where? Not at home. Not at the friend's house mentioned above.

warsong wrote:

watch older sibling

Older sibling isn't allowed to own the game until younger sibling is old enough to play it. The older sibling is, however, allowed to go over to a friend's house.

warsong wrote:

or parent play the game

Clearly if the parent is playing the game, they just don't care.

warsong wrote:

You attack the parents that do not take the time which I agree with you that they should do something but many do not and that will hurt you.

How does that hurt me? I could care less how others raise their kids. (Within obvious legal and moral parameters.)

warsong wrote:

You also ignore the fact that many parents do not want their kids to play those games and restrict them but kids always find a way around it.

See above. Admittedly, where there is a will, there is a way, but things can be made difficult. Parents who know their kids will have an easier time.

warsong wrote:

Ever hear the saying it takes a community to raise a child? Well it is true since for over 2000 years it took communities to raise kids and not just one parent.

Communities have existed long before the year 0.

warsong wrote:

This notion of parents doing everything is a new concept within the last 100 years around.

Before social security and well fare, people who could not take care of themselves or find someone to take care of them died.

warsong wrote:

If the gamming community does not care about the child then they are not part of the community that cares for kids or cares to help parents. Like the other saying goes either you are with us or against us. If the game company does not want to be part of the solution then they are part of the problem.

Eggs are not part of "the solution", so clearly eggs are part of "the problem". What is "the problem" again?

warsong wrote:

Also many parents do not want their kids in day care but many have to work since some are single mothers or both work to make ends meat.

Those are not the people Lynx is talking about.

Lynx wrote:

People are sending their children to daycare, working a job that only pays enough for the daycare, and still do it.

He is just saying that there are people out there who would rather spend their time working to pay for daycare than raise their kids themselves.

warsong wrote:

Also the fact that you get others like the game industry that does not help family by giving information that says that day care benefits kids more and that kids get better grades in school which some buy this.

There is a difference between sending your kid to daycare, and having the daycare raise your kid for you.

warsong wrote:

Too much information and you expect the parent to know everything. If you feel you can see everything of what the kids is doing 24/7 then you are an exception that works less than the average person which gets paid 30thou a year.

Because starting a conversation with "what did you do today?" is difficult?

warsong wrote:

Another fact is this democracy since the people govern but there is not true democracy

Let's save true democracy for another day. It not directly related to topic being discussed.

warsong wrote:

and if there was violent video games would not even be around

I disagree, but this is beside the point.

warsong wrote:

but the reality is that companies rule which pay politicians to be in office so that they help them out.

Sure. Again, this is beside the point.

warsong wrote:

Also some funny replies. ?pointing at me and saying "Razor Leaf", it contrasts well to her pointing at me and saying "Die B@#$%"? LOL

I think that's Miked0801's way of agreeing with:

FourScience wrote:

You can't tell me that a 1,000 kids that play Pokemon are going to be more violent than 1,000 kids that play GTA.

I think I can see where you are coming from, but I don't entirely agree on all points.

-Brendan

sgeos wrote:

warsong wrote:

go out and rent the game,

And play it where? Not at home. Not at the friend's house mentioned above.

This is, umm, gbadev.org. GBA, Nintendo DS, and PSP games can be played anywhere.

sgeos wrote:

warsong wrote:

watch older sibling

Older sibling isn't allowed to own the game until younger sibling is old enough to play it.

If a mother continues to produce babies that are under 10 years old, this rule in effect makes E10 games, such as Lumines, DDR Extreme 2, and the coming Smash Bros. 3, into M games because the child cannot play them until he or she moves out. Anecdotal evidence: I am 24, and my mother is expecting a new baby.

sgeos wrote:

The older sibling is, however, allowed to go over to a friend's house.

How can one play a game that one does not own?

sgeos wrote:

warsong wrote:

or parent play the game

Clearly if the parent is playing the game, they just don't care.

Then who is supposed to buy mature games, if not parents?

sgeos wrote:

warsong wrote:

Ever hear the saying it takes a community to raise a child? Well it is true since for over 2000 years it took communities to raise kids and not just one parent.

Communities have existed long before the year 0.

OK, nearly 6000 years.

sgeos wrote:

warsong wrote:

Also many parents do not want their kids in day care but many have to work since some are single mothers or both work to make ends meat.

Those are not the people Lynx is talking about.

Lynx wrote:

People are sending their children to daycare, working a job that only pays enough for the daycare, and still do it.

He is just saying that there are people out there who would rather spend their time working to pay for daycare than raise their kids themselves.

Sometimes those jobs pay for the daycare but also provide health insurance to both the parent and the child.

sgeos wrote:

warsong wrote:

Too much information and you expect the parent to know everything. If you feel you can see everything of what the kids is doing 24/7 then you are an exception that works less than the average person which gets paid 30thou a year.

Because starting a conversation with "what did you do today?" is difficult?

Kids who don't have an autistic spectrum disorder usually learn, starting at about age 5 years, how to lie.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

Quote:

Then who is supposed to buy mature games, if not parents?

Either
A) The parents, but not when their children are watching. (As implied in the quoted material)
B) People such as myself who are neither parent nor child. (College students alone make up a massive demographic.)

Quote:

Communities have existed long before the year 0.

OK, nearly 6000 years.

Nearly? You've got to think bigger.

Quote:

he older sibling is, however, allowed to go over to a friend's house.

How can one play a game that one does not own?

At a friend's house? Well, presumably the friend would own it.
Alternatively you could rent it, borrow it, or pirate it, but if you're at a friend's house the best bet would be to play games the friend already has copies of.

Though the implication that the parent should pawn the child off on other people's parents to satisfy the child's desires for a more diverse selection of video games is pretty strange.

Quote:

Sometimes those jobs pay for the daycare but also provide health insurance to both the parent and the child.

Sometimes. ... so? The daycare center is not likely to offer [M]-rated games, so how does that enter into it?

Quote:

Kids who don't have an autistic spectrum disorder usually learn, starting at about age 5 years, how to lie.

A parent who can't think of a way to verify what games their child owns is probably not passing down the genes for much intelligence and deviousness.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

Some interesting points but I see people generally agree with what I am saying but like to pick at some things just for the sake if picking at little things. Like that one example about how people were around 10th BC which if people want to be sticklers for details I can also say that the link that they gave is wrong which I have seen others that say it is older. Besides that site is a bit off sometimes, well what you expect from something free.

The better advertising a game gets the better it sells. Kind of like how one Junk food company spend billions which gets plenty from marketing shit in a box, and vegetable companies sell only 2 million.

Anyway people ask many easy questions which you should rethink. Pretend you are defending the other side of the view then you can answer your simple questions which would be a waste of time to answer.
Also some said interesting and funny replies. ;)

Here is a positive game that is on the right track for the DS called ?Training for Adults: Work Your Brain? http://ds.ign.com/articles/631/631268p1.html
Why couldn?t you think of a game like this? I know most people can make a game like this but no one does. I don?t know if many people lack creativity which I have not seen much of that since playing lots of games can influence you from thinking out of the box sometimes. Even Nintendo?s Miyamoto does not play games in an official interview which he admitted so don?t reply and say that he does really play games.

[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
I think that a person?s brain looks like the first picture when playing regular games lol. I guess people need to read aloud. MY MISSION IN GTA IS TO ?.. Then we will see benefits like the study says. ;)

My mission in GTA is to stop playing right now. Done. Fantastic.

warsong wrote:

kid?s tests scores are going down.

Tests (at least the government-issued standardized tests) are fucked up to begin with. Everyone in the education field knows that.

warsong wrote:

Game companies are trying to take away the rating system.

Where the hell did you pull that ridiculous bullshit from?

warsong wrote:

which like I said they are not better than drug dealers.

If you're comparing game companies to drug dealers, you've clearly gone nuts.

sgeos wrote:

Sure. The consequences of children playing "violent games" are still in debate.

Although, the debate becomes futile when people wake up from their religious-right fantasy land and realize that teenage violence has been declining over the the last 30 years: that is, the exact period of time video games have been around.

Honestly warsong, have some fucking common sense...

I haven't read everything everyone said. Of what I've read some words are wise and some are less wise. Where I live in sweden I belive that over 80% of the kids and teenagers are wasting their time and throwing away their lives to online-multiplayergames with no end! Sure it's okay to play games, I do it too. But I don't just ONLY play games on my freetime. Besides I don't like to play games with no end like world of warcraft or half-life. I have many projects going on latley and I will try to make a game thats fun, challenging and has a end.

I also think that small kids (5-10 years or so) should NOT play violent games. Because my cousin became all mad of playing counter-strike at the age of 8. Screaming "YOU $#!% *** P****$" at the computer screen when he got killed and he also threw his mouse in the wall.

And I have lots more to say but my brother has no coffee nor water, so he is dying of thirst. Good bye.

Do not abuse !!
_________________
I dig.

If you disagree with what I said then you are ignoring the facts.
Some complain that parents should look after the kid 24/7 which is impossible. Games labeled for 18 year old and up can not be enforced since stores sell to kids since there is no law that mandates them like smoking. They don?t get a fine if they sell a rating M game to a 13 or 6 years old. It is easy to hide something from parents. The majority of kids do what they want to do and to say other wise is not rational in what the norm is. The game companies are trying to trick the rating system since they do not care but you believe them with all your heart, talk about being blind.

Again the new GTA they present it as a game rated for (M) Mature, but they try to trick the rating system to hide the sexually explicit content with a code which the game has to be reviewed again. Talk about the game industry being nice. No matter how much you check the game the company is always trying to find new ways of going around it. Even the news stated that most parents get confused about the rating system and the stores do not show it all since it is new to them and they are simplifying it. sure it looks simple to you just like a rpg game looks simple to you to play, but some dads don?t understand it just as much as how they do not understand RPG games with all the stats which can take 10 min to start a game.

Military psychologists use violent to desensitize the soldiers to kill without question. They are using games now to do the same and they have stated many times that they do not approve of it. The military can break an adult and make a platoon of men cry and those same people are warning the government to do something about games since it does affect people weather people realize it or not.

A recent study shows that most CEO's of companies have a psychopathic personality, and that indicates that they do not care for others and do this form their self interest. They have the money to push back legislation to not make the rating system more severe so that the store owner to not sell to kids. And what I have stated before has been said on the news.

The point is everything to moderation but these violent games are intended to be addicting which I even send info to friends in the industry to help them make them game more addicting. And no I do not give it to people that make meaningless violent games. Companies that supports the mindless violent games are bias and do not tell you the entire story. You have to know how stats work since they are manipulated which many fall into this trap. I even know professional statisticians which they indicate that they are manipulated in many fields so to prove their clients right which have a vested interest. Police ask the question "who benefits?? from the crime. What benefit does a neutral research gain, or psychologists gain, and the rest that tell you watch out? You can do what you like but know the consequences. Games will eventually show you better how to kill and rape, if a porno, or movie did this then they would be in trouble. Even Larry Flint is against how things have become which he says they crossed the line. As you see the point is that what was not ok is now, and what you find not ok now will be ok later, and it will continue until we value nothing. We are not going forward but backwards.

I think I am out of my league since it is trying to explain logic to illogical, standard proceeding that are used in every field are denied by people that play games 24/7 that think they know it all.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Dan.

Lol - good answer. Is this the part where you smack him down with your light saber and make him more powerful than I can possibly imagine?

warsong wrote:

If you disagree with what I said then you are ignoring the facts.

Keep pulling so-called "facts" out of your ass, and I'll keep ignoring them.

warsong wrote:

Military psychologists use violent to desensitize the soldiers to kill without question. They are using games now to do the same and they have stated many times that they do not approve of it. The military can break an adult and make a platoon of men cry and those same people are warning the government to do something about games since it does affect people weather people realize it or not.

Since games are so incredibly effective at turning people into mindless killers, how about you go to the military and propose that they replace their entire boot camp with free XBoxes. See how long it takes them to laugh you out the door.

warsong wrote:

The military can break an adult and make a platoon of men cry and those same people are warning the government to do something about games since it does affect people weather people realize it or not.

Just because some video game made you cry like a little bitch, doesn't mean it has the same effect on the rest of us normal humans.

warsong wrote:

And what I have stated before has been said on the news.

And I can always believe EVERYTHING my TV tells me! A news anchor could NEVER get the facts wrong!

warsong wrote:

You have to know how stats work since they are manipulated which many fall into this trap. I even know professional statisticians which they indicate that they are manipulated in many fields so to prove their clients right which have a vested interest.

Of course, this obviously doesn't apply to any of YOUR statistics.

warsong wrote:

As you see the point is that what was not ok is now, and what you find not ok now will be ok later, and it will continue until we value nothing. We are not going forward but backwards.

Then go cry into a corner while the rest of us "crazed killers" get on with our lives.

warsong wrote:

I think I am out of my league since it is trying to explain logic to illogical

Irony at its best :)

Abscissa wrote:

warsong wrote:

Military psychologists use violent to desensitize the soldiers to kill without question. They are using games now to do the same and they have stated many times that they do not approve of it.

Since games are so incredibly effective at turning people into mindless killers, how about you go to the military and propose that they replace their entire boot camp with free XBoxes. See how long it takes them to laugh you out the door.

Video games have not replaced boot camp in the U.S. Army, but they have supplemented boot camp. Recruitment already makes use of a custom Unreal mod called America's Army, and even before that, deathmatches in Quake brand games have been a component of boot camp.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

tepples wrote:

Abscissa wrote:

warsong wrote:

Military psychologists use violent to desensitize the soldiers to kill without question. They are using games now to do the same and they have stated many times that they do not approve of it.

Since games are so incredibly effective at turning people into mindless killers, how about you go to the military and propose that they replace their entire boot camp with free XBoxes. See how long it takes them to laugh you out the door.

Video games have not replaced boot camp in the U.S. Army, but they have supplemented boot camp.

Exactly my point. *If* games were anywhere near as effective at turning people into crazed killers as these military psychologists and the people who quote them believe, then it *would* make perfect sense to replace boot camp with them. But they obviously don't. And keep in mind: going on long runs is also used to help train those soldiers to become effective killers. Does that imply running turns people into crazed killers? I call "bullshit".

Abscissa wrote:

*If* games were anywhere near as effective at turning people into crazed killers as these military psychologists and the people who quote them believe, then it *would* make perfect sense to replace boot camp with them.

No matter what Konami and RedOctane tell you (see getupmove.com), a video game is never going to replace physical conditioning, but video games are good for taking away the mental block against shooting something with a human face.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

tepples wrote:

a video game is never going to replace physical conditioning

Exactly.

tepples wrote:

but video games are good for taking away the mental block against shooting something with a human face.

But only if there's an explicit intent to get over that mental block. A soldier-in-training knows that this is a block they're trying to get over. I've played TONS of games involving spectacular car crashes, laughing my ass off all the way. But the one time I saw a *real* car overturned on the highway, I was freaked out beyond belief for the rest of the day. Anyone who knows the difference between "real" and "not real" (which includes any kid beyond toddler age) is always going to maintain a wall between sensitivity to real events and sensitivity to ficticious events unless - like the soldiers - they are specifically trying to break down that particular wall.

Whilst I agree with what you're saying Abscissa, I think you've over-estimated a huge chunk of the population. People such as most of those on this forum will be fine with any violence in their media (not just video games). They know it's not real, and they know to make sensible decisions in their real world life. But there is a minority who are just too thick to do this. There really are people who are that stupid as to not know the difference.

Ben

Wriggler wrote:

Whilst I agree with what you're saying Abscissa, I think you've over-estimated a huge chunk of the population. People such as most of those on this forum will be fine with any violence in their media (not just video games). They know it's not real, and they know to make sensible decisions in their real world life. But there is a minority who are just too thick to do this. There really are people who are that stupid as to not know the difference.

That's true, but those people are just as easily set off by pretty much anything benign. If it's not a game, it'll be something else like a book, a newspaper, or even just a random urge. And they're a relatively small minority anyway.

Interesting related devlopment: The ESRB just changed the rating on GTA:SA to "AO":

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=333601

Although I agree with the first post on there: that's a hell of a lot of hooplah over a difference of one stupid year.

Abscissa wrote:

That's true, but those people are just as easily set off by pretty much anything benign. If it's not a game, it'll be something else like a book, a newspaper, or even just a random urge. And they're a relatively small minority anyway.

Agreed, but does that make it right? ;)

Ben

Wriggler wrote:

Abscissa wrote:

That's true, but those people are just as easily set off by pretty much anything benign. If it's not a game, it'll be something else like a book, a newspaper, or even just a random urge. And they're a relatively small minority anyway.

Agreed, but does that make it right? ;)

It doesn't make the irrational person's behavior OK, but it does mean that the games are not what's at fault. Thus, the games cannot rationally be blamed for the behavior of the random nutcase who cannot distinguish between reality and fiction.

====Poslundc
So you are a sith. When you say absolute it can go either way you know, since you want to absolutely let any game be made while I say things to moderation. ;) Freedom for a barbarians would want to see senseless violence in the public eye, but slavery for a civilized person is to be forced to see the senseless violence. People already mass produce crap in the toilet, but I guess many to want to eat crap, look like crap, see crap, and create crap. Well people are a product of what they do as the saying goes.

====Abscuissa
2+2=4 Don't argue with the fact just try to understand it. Games simulate reality and what research experts know I stated. even some physiologies help people with their fears by letting for example a person that has a fear of bridges go into a simulated environment with a bridge. As the moderator stated about the military they do use it to desensitize the persons mind slowly. You do not jump into freezing water you gradually get use to it if you will go to freezing water. How old are you anyway and what kind of schooling do you have? :|

You act like you know better than all professions and you make it like you know it all which you are far off on what you say. I know you are trying to defend you games and I don't mind that you play those bad games, but let?s try to see what is proper and not proper.

Video games did affect you since look how you talk. You said ?Just because some video game made you cry like a little bitch, doesn't mean it has the same effect on the rest of us normal humans.? XAXAXAXAXA
They have done studies as well to show that people that are violent or/and play violent games are more hostile. you calling another name like bitch is an example. Every single person think they are normal in their own abnormal way. Also crazy people don't generally say they are crazy.

Also thanks for indicating the news about the rating about GTA even though Rockstar like I said lied and denied about it the entire time until one gaming article pointed out that it is on the ps2 version. I tell you the truth you attack me, Rockstar lies and give sells you addicting negative substances you pride and defend. Nice backwards logic, if you were a lawyers would you also defend convicted predefining killers as well like the ACLU does? I hope not, but if you do then that is your right.

You say "Then go cry into a corner while the rest of us "crazed killers" get on with our lives.? Naaaaa you won?t kill you will just be foul mouthed to and yell loud and insult to prove your point. Games don?t make people kill but they do have multiple negative affects. Come on dude use some moderation.

====Tempples
you said "games are good for taking away the mental block against shooting something with a human face." That is true in a way. Games in the early 80 you were shooting at people that look like Lego blocks, now games are more realistic. Games will be made more realistic and they are already beating movies in sales. Movies move people to make them feel to get mad, sad, happy, and afraid; and games are reaching that and if you keep bombarding people with these images it helps them be more desensitized. Now a movie is fake but people get moved like the movie passion of the Christ for example since they are not use to it, and some people do not get moved to see a dead body like people in Pakistan since they are use to it. What Abscissa like to talk about are exceptions, and when I say pigs can?t fly he will tell me a story of seeing a pig on a plane.

People have the right to do what they want, but they should not addict others to it as well and say it is good.

Quote:

People have the right to do what they want, but they should not addict others to it as well and say it is good.

Maybe they shouldn't, but they do have a right to 'say that it is good'.
_________________
Not active on this forum. For Lemmings DS help see its website.

Quote:

They have done studies

Don't trust a study you didn't fake yourself.

For that simulating violence => violence in normal life ... is simple ***.

I've been a soldier for several years. I have simulated and am trained to shoot other combatants. As well as my comrades did. And tbh none of them is a violent person, infact a lot of them are much more sensitive for a harmonic livetogether then a lot ppl i meet on the streets.

It's neither the army nor the game nor whatever simulates violence which makes persones go on a rampage, its their personality that search for violence in games and in their RL environment.

So no, you can't addict others with violence, if they arn't already or are very early in their social development.

It's worth pointing out that when people like to prove how evil games are most (all?) of the studies people like to talk about in this context show a link between violence and violent games. This is a statistical link only. It is not a causal relationship.

People love to find statistical things and assign a simplistic "A sometimes happens with B, therefore A makes B more likely!" But that kind of simplistic reasoning is very often wrong. The demographics of the planet is a very big system. When you see a pattern you're usually only seeing a small part of a larger pattern.

Here are some examples. (For your enjoyment I've ordered them roughly in order from Very Probable to Silly)

If you were already violent person, wouldn't you be likely to seek out violent forms of entertainment? That's a statistical link, but it says nothing bad about games.
Since the dawn of civilization, urban areas have been more violent than rural areas. To me, It seems very likely that games are more popular in urban areas. If true, that would be a statistical link, but it would say nothing bad about games.
Many people buy their PS2 primarily to play Madden. American Football is a violent sport. If football fans happened to be slightly more inclined towards violence, that right there would explain the weak link between violence and games, but it would say nothing bad about games.
Perhaps the demographics of violent children and video-game players overlap significantly in some other way. That would be a statistical link, bit it would say nothing bad about games.
Perhaps people who are violent always wear green hats, Blue shoes go well with green hats and perhaps game stores actively market to people blue shoes. This ridiculous situation would be a statistical link, but it would say nothing bad about games.

That's not to say the studies are worthless, but they don't mean what the news media would like them to mean. Statistical studies are an important part of understanding the demographics of the country, or the world. And in some cases if there was a really strong link between A and B, then you might use B as a helpful indicator that you need to look out for A. But the link between violence and video games is very weak. It's statistically significant, but not nearly strong enough to be predictive.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

"Confirmed: Sex minigame in PS2 San Andreas
Cheat unlocks preexisting code in controversy-rocked Grand Theft Auto game, undermining Rockstar Games' claims of hacker mischief. "
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/15/news_6129301.html

As you see they make immoral games, so why wouldn't they add more immoral things, and since they do that then it is obvious they lied since they ignore morals.
As you see companies should have a responsibility and venders do not sell drinks to minors but sell these X-rated games which the company hides which so many people yelled out that it only the parents are to blame. It takes 2 to tango.

To compare a football game with killing innocent people in a game is a big difference and if people can not see that then they should find help.

The point of minors playing such a game is a valid one. But it is not the fault of the liquid-creator that the bartender ignores law, is it?

Quote:

To compare a football game with killing innocent people in a game

What about Chess then? It's a simulation of war. Killing innocent is part of it. Ban it from the shops?

Last edited by Mighty Max on Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

(I'm quoting warsong's post slightly out of order. )

warsong wrote:

"Confirmed: Sex minigame in PS2 San Andreas
Cheat unlocks preexisting code in controversy-rocked Grand Theft Auto game, undermining Rockstar Games' claims of hacker mischief. "
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/15/news_6129301.html

Quote:

As you see they make immoral games,

Something is only immoral if it hurts someone. Which is the topic we're currently debating.

Quote:

As you see companies should have a responsibility and venders do not sell drinks to minors

I was carded when I bought 'San Andreas'.

Quote:

but sell these X-rated games which the company hides which so many people yelled out that it only the parents are to blame.

San Andreas game was not "x-rated". Even the secret mini-game had only interminably boring clothed dry-humping.

(There were mods to make it unclothed, but you can't blame Rockstar for mods. AFAIK those mods don't work on the PS/2 anyway.)

I think it's pretty clear that if you're a 17+ year old searching the Internet for a crack to run on your game, and you've purchased the hardware necessary to mess with a PS2 save-game, then you're probably savvy enough to use the Internet to find non-game-related material far more "x-rated" than clothed dry humping.

If you think clothed humping is scandalous and "x-rated", then you've either just beamed in from the 1950s, or you've lead an extremely sheltered existence.

Quote:

then it is obvious they lied since they ignore morals.

Incidentally, I've been trying to track down where Rockstar actually makes this now-infamous denial. I'm assuming there was a press release or something. I've only been able to find two quotes from it.

"[Hot Coffee is] the work of a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the official version of the game."
This is true, if slightly misleading. The original "Hot Coffee" downloadable mod did more than just unlock the minigame, it also removed the girls' clothes. So they've "altered" the "scene" in the mini-game.
"Hackers created the 'Hot Coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code."
This is only true if you define "source code" to mean the .dat files and the savegames, instead of the compiled binaries. If they'd just said "Code" I'd have been fine with that, but "source code" means, to me, specifically means the code you'd compile into a binary executable.

Quote:

To compare a football game with killing innocent people in a game is a big difference and if people can not see that then they should find help.

I hope you're not addressing that at me, because I made no such comparison.

In lighter news, "Jack Thompson" the lawyer/media agitator who first started this frensy about San Andreas has obviously been encouraged by his 'success'. He is now claiming that "The Sims 2" is "worse than San Andreas" and "A pedophile's paradise" and calls for it to be pulled from shelves, recalled, and criminalized. The best part is that this recent manifesto is full of mistruthes He claims that Maxis went out of their way to give the sims genitals and nipples under their blur, which is completely false.
Either he's intentionally lieing, or he made a serious criminal accusation in a very public way without even the most basic fact-checking. Either way that is a serious immoral act. So, huzzah for hypocrisy.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

This looks a lot like the red scare of the 50's. Wonder who the next witch/commy/nude hack is the next target.

BTW, don't worry too much. As soon as the games industry starts Bribing - err "Lobbying" congress a bit more, this will all go away.

Miked0801 wrote:

As soon as the games industry starts Bribing - err "Lobbying" congress a bit more

...we'll get even more draconian anti-homebrew copyright-enforcement and tying-enforcement laws than we already have.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

warsong wrote:

2+2=4

Yes, that is correct. Completely irrelevant, but correct.

warsong wrote:

How old are you anyway and what kind of schooling do you have?

Twenty-three, and five years of college. Which is more than enough to avoid grammatical atrocities such as these:

warsong wrote:

You act like you know better than all professions and you make it like you know it all which you are far off on what you say.
...
XAXAXAXAXA
...
even though Rockstar like I said lied and denied about it the entire time until one gaming article pointed out that it is on the ps2 version.
...
if you were a lawyers would you also defend convicted predefining killers as well like the ACLU does?
...
Naaaaa you won?t kill you will just be foul mouthed to and yell loud and insult to prove your point.

Honestly, how do expect me to take you seriously if I can't even understand half of what you're saying?

warsong wrote:

Video games did affect you since look how you talk.

I threw insults, therefore it was video games that made me do it? And you actually think you understand logic? Wow. The ignorance is overwhelming.

warsong wrote:

and when I say pigs can?t fly he will tell me a story of seeing a pig on a plane.

Pigs? I think you've just about gone nuts.

warsong wrote:

As you see they make immoral games, so why wouldn't they add more immoral things, and since they do that then it is obvious they lied since they ignore morals.

Sex is immoral? Yup, it's now official: you are certifiably insane. Congratulations.

APL wrote:

It's worth pointing out that when people like to prove how evil games are most (all?) of the studies people like to talk about in this context show a link between violence and violent games. This is a statistical link only. It is not a causal relationship.

Yup. Correlation is not causation. It's too bad that so many people (warsong) can't understand that. And then there's the fact that their measure of so-called "real-world violence" is nothing more than pulling them off the game, giving them a stuffed toy in the testing lab, and seeing if they hit the stuffed toy.

APL wrote:

In lighter news, "Jack Thompson" the lawyer/media agitator who first started this frensy about San Andreas has obviously been encouraged by his 'success'. He is now claiming that "The Sims 2" is "worse than San Andreas" and "A pedophile's paradise" and calls for it to be pulled from shelves, recalled, and criminalized.

Either he's intentionally lieing, or he made a serious criminal accusation in a very public way without even the most basic fact-checking. Either way that is a serious immoral act. So, huzzah for hypocrisy.

Ugh. I'm still looking forward to the day that lunatic is committed to an asylum.

Miked0801 wrote:

BTW, don't worry too much. As soon as the games industry starts Bribing - err "Lobbying" congress a bit more, this will all go away.

Meh, it'll die off along with the baby-boomers. Well, assuming they don't completely fuck everything up before they go. (No offense to any baby-boomers on this forum: I just mean that this whole hysteria is mostly (even if not entirely) a previous-gen thing. It'll go away along with them, just like the "rock'n'roll=evil" mentality of the generation before that.)

warsong: Eat this

We did go off topic from the main point.

Interesting how some take thing out of context and distort what the main point it. Keep it up, that way you will always feel right. ;) And for someone to say chess is violent is moronic; O yes the blood and gore that the game focuses on, please. As for Sims 2 who care since it doesn?t focus on it and it was not intended to do anything bad. The stats can say they sell to adults but companies targer kids and some in the industry admit it.

Abscissa to show one site that give a positive spin on it does not take away that fact there are more facts that go against. It is like saying you got one vote out of 100 and you feel you are right, now that is funny. But the site you gave said plenty of wrong things that some have been stated. The site is not relevant to what I have been staying anyway. As for the stats people are ignoring other factors in society which they do not tell you about like the increase of security and police. Also the fact that violent is so high from 50 years ago that it tends to go up and down especially when we pay more taxes since so many loves to pay more for extra safety. Don?t take states at face vale since you have to look at everything that comes to play which they do not tell you. Stats that say it is good are used to manipulate people to support them since they have a financial interest. Freedom is not being taken away, but we do not have freedom from a content bombardment from garbage should be understood. Also games do not account for all the violence that is going on but it is another straw on the camels back which the game designers do not want to take any responsibility. Everyone is to blame and not just one faction.
Look online and see for yourself the wave of information about it all. And we have a few opinionated people that don?t get it.

For every one site that says crappy games are ok there is another 5 more that counter that argument. Just try to make a game that is manful, if you can?t then you are not a talented designer to incorporate it and that?s that. Just try to make good games that have a meaning and not waste peoples time, if you do not then we know what kind of designer you are. Do people really need to explain logic to you? Are you saying more violet activities will make people more civilized? So I guess people should watch out for old ladies since they might be the most violent of them all because they do not play violent games or watch as much violent entertainment. LOL Can you imagine a old lady watching something extremely violent, sexual, with a lot of profanity with her grand child and her saying YEAH Kill the Bastard, F@#$ him up the @#$, and @#% on his face that mother @#$%@. LOL I am sure you might be laughing but obviously it would be a good thing. I also see people laughing when others get their limbs cut off in reality and that doesn?t mean they are in the right state of mind. True some people are violent but people are not born that way or at least they are not trained to be proper.

Who knows maybe I will come out with a game called Go F your Dog you Mother F?er, and I bet you I will get plenty of support from twisted people. Hey people will buy it to just see what will happen next it the game, I bet some people will buy it and like it since some are like that. And if some do not like it then don?t worry in 20 years your kids or grand kids will love it and the kids will their moms to go F themselves since that is what the game is all about to do those things, and I will say it is just a harmless game. Brainwashing people is easy, making people civilized is hard since people seem to want to be animals. Maybe some will say we should target kids under 4 years old and teach them now to read and write with words like necrofilia, murder, dildo, hooker, pimp, rob, steal, etc. But again dont worry it will be done sooner or later. It is a good thing we have the ACLU to defend pedofiliac killers which they are helping to push for it. Weather you like it or not it will happen since this is a slippery slope.

============= stats and quotes, but everyone will ignroe since people never want to listen what should be since they want to do what they to do at the price of everyone else. How sadistic, but that is obvious.
If you want some links then here:
?Playing a video game triggers the same violent responses in the brain as actual aggression, researchers claim.?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4119408.stm Also I have to note that if people are not affected as they say then the person tends to be more sadistic which is linked to other negative things like bad language, bad attitude, hypersensitivity, and more which many have shown this time and time again.

Look everything to moderation. You don?t want a game that consists of full violence, and you don?t want food that is just made of pure sugar, because if you do it will desensitize you and then you will want m ore since the original does not make you feel anything. People that do these are not taking things to moderation. Violence, profanity, and the rest ok, but we should not have them just for the sake of it.

"If you want to include violence in your games...put your heart and soul into it, do it with awareness -- not because violence is easy, or because it shocks, but because you need dissonance, and you know how and why it strengthens your game.? Game designer Brian Moriarty at 1998 Game Developers Conference

"Our children are being fed a dependable daily dose of violence...[that blurs the line between] fantasy and reality....for too many young people...[The] time has come to show some restraint..." Clinton I know it is funny coming from a guy that can not hold restraint but as it seems society affected him in a genitive way.
What game would u say crosses the line? Can you think of any that would be out of bounds? If so in around 10-20 years you might see that kind of game come to life, just like how the majority of people 50 years ago did not think entertainment would turn out the way it has now.

What if we made society have the most violent things imaginable and unimaginable? What about a game that you kill, rape, and eat an entire family and you have to increase your sadistic score to win by doing the most depraved acts? Wouldn?t that be fun too since it is just a game? And what if every form of media represents it and it is main stream? The reason why we have more and more negative things presented to us are that we become desensitized as a people and we need more to affect us, and eventually we will turn out to be cold sad products of our environment. People think of the now and dam the future, just like how so much toxics put in the air, land and ocean which contaminate everything and you have people say it wont affect anything. You play a big of violence obviously it wont affect you if you see it once for most, just like if you throw toxics in a big lake again it wont affect you if you only did it one time, but if you keep doing it constantly and everyone does it then we will have problems.

Also the fact that some say its the parents responsability can not be the case most of the time and they have a up hill battle. http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/facts/mediafacts.asp

The pros, cons, and stats http://www.smith.edu/educ/student%20work/violence/Quest.htm
------------------Here are some stats.
About 40 percent of those who play Mature-rated games are under 18
45 percent of all video game players are under the age of 18
(65.7 million are children and teens. 20 million video game players are 12 and under.) BRAVO
78 percent of unaccompanied children (companeis know this an exploit it)
and ages 13?16 were able to buy Mature-rated games at retail stores
- ESRB president is hired by the video game lobbying group... Neither the names of the raters nor the criteria they use to arrive at ratings decisions are available to the public.

? Teen boys average ten hours per week playing video games.
? Teens who play violent video games do worse in school than those who do not.
? Only 15% of teens think their parents know about video game ratings.
? Only 2% of teens say their parents routinely check ratings.
Only 1% of teens report that their parents have ever prevented them from buying games due to their ratings.
Youth who prefer violent video games are more likely to get into arguments with their teachers and are more likely to get into physical fights, regardless of gender.
Only 26% of retail or rental stores provided any information about the rating systems
Only 30% of retail stores trained their employees on the rating systems.

A 22-year longitudinal study by University of Michigan researchers Leonard Eron and Rowell Huesmann reported a direct correlation in middle-class children between the amount of violent entertainment watched and subsequent aggressive, anti-social behavior.

? Both of these studies have been endorsed by the American Medical Association and are listed in their Physician Guide to Media Violence.
Studies linking violent video games with increased aggression and/or delinquency.

"There is a growing body of hard and verifiable evidence that suggests the violent and sexual content of entertainment media can be harmful to children's development," Neurobiological Research

"Six national public health organizations-- including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)-- issued a joint statement confirming that violent video games, movies and music lead to increased aggressive behavior, particularly in children."

"former West Point psychology professor Lt. Colonel Grossman, a retired army officer and nationally known expert on the psychology of killing, said: "All you've got to do is study what kids are being rewarded for"." ALso he is a Pulitzer Prize-nominated book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,".. . pursued study of "killology, and author of ?Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill,?

==========NOW lets go back to the main Topic!

Was my last post in this thread deleted? Or did I become stupid for a moment and hit "Preview" instead of "Post"?

Abscissa wrote:

warsong wrote:

[etc etc etc ...]Naaaaa you won?t kill you will just be foul mouthed to and yell loud and insult to prove your point.

Honestly, how do expect me to take you seriously if I can't even understand half of what you're saying?

Perhaps he's just upset the guy at the store won't sell him GTA games until he's older.
(More charitable version : Perhaps English isn't his native language. This is the Internet after all.)

Abscissa wrote:

warsong wrote:

Video games did affect you since look how you talk.

I threw insults, therefore it was video games that made me do it? And you actually think you understand logic? Wow. The ignorance is overwhelming.

Forget logic, he thinks "since look how you talk" is good English.

warsong wrote:

and when I say pigs can?t fly he will tell me a story of seeing a pig on a plane.

I dunno about airplanes, but 'The Muppet Show' had Piiiigs In Spaaaaaace!
You might not think that counts as flying pigs, but I think it does. Because their ship, The 'Swine Trek', was actually a giant metal pig.

Abscissa wrote:

warsong wrote:

As you see they make immoral games, so why wouldn't they add more immoral things, and since they do that then it is obvious they lied since they ignore morals.

Sex is immoral? Yup, it's now official: you are certifiably insane. Congratulations.

I don't know where Warsong or Abscissa lives, but here in America things seem to be ruled by this simple (if confusing) rule of thumb :

Sex : Bad
Violence : Good
Patriotic Violence : Great!

Abscissa wrote:

APL wrote:

In lighter news, "Jack Thompson" the lawyer/media agitator who first started this frensy about San Andreas has obviously been encouraged by his 'success'. He is now claiming that "The Sims 2" is "worse than San Andreas" and "A pedophile's paradise" and calls for it to be pulled from shelves, recalled, and criminalized. [...]

Ugh. I'm still looking forward to the day that lunatic is committed to an asylum.

Asylum? Now that everybody knows his name he'll probably run for office!
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

Instead of responding with a rambling diatribe of my own, I'm going to try to respond to Warsong's roughtly in the order it was presented.

warsong wrote:

We did go off topic from the main point.

Yes. I hate it when facts interfere with a vague and moralist diatribes.

Quote:

And for someone to say chess is violent is moronic;

Explain why. It is symbolic of a war. It does not include the same level of detail, but at its heart you, as a chess player, are charged to kidnap a ruling monarch, obliterating his army in the process. (Not to mention that half of your army and half of his are conscripts!)
Are you objecting to games with violent graphics or games about violence?

Quote:

As for Sims 2 who care since it doesn't focus on it and it was not intended to do anything bad.

"Intended to do anything bad"? With the exception of a neo-nazi propaganda game I once saw, I can't really think of any computer games intended to do something bad.

Quote:

Abscissa to show one site that give a positive spin on it does not take away that fact there are more facts that go against. It is like saying you got one vote out of 100 and you feel you are right, now that is funny.

So 100 newspaper opinion pieces outweigh a single article full of hard facts tabulated by law enforcement agencies?
If you know someone in a better position to have statistics on youth violence than the DOJ I'd like to hear about it.

Quote:

Also the fact that violent is so high from 50 years ago that it tends to go up and down especially when we pay more taxes since so many loves to pay more for extra safety. Don?t take states at face vale since you have to look at everything that comes to play which they do not tell you.

Can we get this paragraph again in English please? Thanks.

Quote:

Freedom is not being taken away

Every time something is outlawed or censored freedom has been taken away. You might think outlawing or censoring something is a good thing, but don't you dare claim it was in the name of freedom.

Quote:

Look online and see for yourself the wave of information about it all. And we have a few opinionated people that don?t get it.

I see the same fear mongering and moralistic outrage that has throughout history accompanied every new form of entertainment.
People have been writing essays like yours (only better written) since the Greeks and probably before that. (I'm not making that up.)

Quote:

For every one site that says crappy games are ok there is another 5 more that counter that argument.

For every website you show me about the moon landing, I can find five that claim to offer 'proof ' it was a hoax.

Quote:

Just try to make a game that is manful, if you can?t then you are not a talented designer to incorporate it and that?s that. Just try to make good games that have a meaning and not waste peoples time, if you do not then we know what kind of designer you are. Do people really need to explain logic to you?

I need people to explain your writing to me. I'm not even sure what this says.

Quote:

LOL Can you imagine a old lady watching something extremely violent, sexual, with a lot of profanity with her grand child and her saying YEAH Kill the Bastard, F@#$ him up the @#$, and @#% on his face that mother @#$%@. LOL

Imagine? I don't have to : http://oghc.blogspot.com/

Quote:

I am sure you might be laughing but obviously it would be a good thing.

Obviously.

Quote:

I also see people laughing when others get their limbs cut off in reality and that doesn?t mean they are in the right state of mind.

I'm glad I don't live near you.

Quote:

It is a good thing we have the ACLU to defend pedofiliac killers which they are helping to push for it.

The ACLU helps defends the rights of all Americans. (Except gun owners for some reason.) A man does not forfeit his rights because he has committed (or been accused of) a disgusting crime. But I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Try to stay on topic.

Warsong wrote:

?Playing a video game triggers the same violent responses in the brain as actual aggression, researchers claim.?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4119408.stm

WRONG That's not what the article says. It says that playing a violent video game triggers the same brain responses as imagining committing a violent act. I don't see why that's suprising at all. All good forms of entertainment work with your imagination.

Quote:

Also I have to note that if people are not affected as they say then the person tends to be more sadistic which is linked to other negative things like bad language, bad attitude, hypersensitivity, and more which many have shown this time and time again.

I thought you said you were giving us facts. This is not a fact, this is your opinion.

Quote:

"If you want to include violence in your games...put your heart and soul into it, do it with awareness -- not because violence is easy, or because it shocks, but because you need dissonance, and you know how and why it strengthens your game.? Game designer Brian Moriarty at 1998 Game Developers Conference

Excellent Quote. I definetly agree that adding anything to a game for no good reason will not make your game more fun.

Quote:

Clinton I know it is funny coming from a guy that can not hold restraint but as it seems society affected him in a genitive way.

I know what the word "Genitive" means. Do you?

Quote:

What game would u say crosses the line?

The line is between fiction and real life. You seem to have trouble with that line, but for most of the rest of us there's a sharp delineation in our minds between fiction and reality.

Quote:

[Another page of pointless, mostly off-topic rambling

You promised us facts! Where are they?

Quote:

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/facts/mediafacts.asp

These are the facts you promised us? These are facts about people's opinions!
And most of them are completely off-topic. Yes, a large number of people in this country want more censorship and less freedom. That does not surprise me at all.

Quote:

------------------Here are some stats.

Finaly!

Quote:

About 40 percent of those who play Mature-rated games are under 18

Of them, how many are 17?

Quote:

45 percent of all video game players are under the age of 18

That makes sense since the majority of video games are rated [E]

Quote:

(65.7 million are children and teens. 20 million video game players are 12 and under.)

It's a big country. And most of our games are rated [E] and designed for children.

Quote:

[...] the names of the raters [...] are [not] available to the public.

This is correct and proper, they should be anonymous to avoid bribery, harassment and other outside influence.

Quote:

A 22-year longitudinal study by University of Michigan researchers Leonard Eron and Rowell Huesmann reported a direct correlation in middle-class children between the amount of violent entertainment watched and subsequent aggressive, anti-social behavior

Not a causal connection though. Just a statistical link.

Quote:

"There is a growing body of hard and verifiable evidence that suggests the violent and sexual content of entertainment media can be harmful to children's development," Neurobiological Research

There are many things adults enjoy the freedom to experience that should be limited or completely restricted to children. This is why children have parents.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

warsong wrote:

Abscissa to show one site that give a positive spin on it does not take away that fact there are more facts that go against. It is like saying you got one vote out of 100 and you feel you are right, now that is funny.

You didn't even read it did you? This isn't a "vote" system, this is logic. That "one vote" I linked to completely destroys your entire theory.

warsong wrote:

For every one site that says crappy games are ok there is another 5 more that counter that argument.

There's nothing OK about crappy games, I hate them just as much as anyone. But we're not talking about crappy games, we're talking about violent games. And you're complaining about me getting offtopic?

warsong wrote:

Just try to make a game that is manful, if you can?t then you are not a talented designer to incorporate it and that?s that.

What is a "manful" game? Is that homoerotic or something?

warsong wrote:

Even Larry Flint is against how things have become which he says they crossed the line.

Who gives a shit what Larry Flint thinks? Is he one of your so-called psychological "experts"? I'm pretty sure that's far outside his job description.

warsong wrote:

It is a good thing we have the ACLU to defend pedofiliac killers which they are helping to push for it.

The ACLU is there to defend pedophiliac killers? One again, you've proven your lunacy.

warsong wrote:

============= stats and quotes, but everyone will ignroe since people never want to listen

What? You're giving me statistics? That's really funny because I thought you had said:

warsong wrote:

You have to know how stats work since they are manipulated which many fall into this trap. I even know professional statisticians which they indicate that they are manipulated in many fields so to prove their clients right which have a vested interest.

So I guess I can ignore the rest of your post since, as you said (and I agree), stats are easily manipulated and unreliable.

Which is good, because I'm already having a hard enough time reading your broken English. Heck, at this point I don't even care if you're a legitimate non-native speaker or just some "133t" kid: go read some of these books before you keep trying to make your absurd points. In the meantime, I'm done trying to decipher your gibberish.

APL wrote:

I dunno about airplanes, but 'The Muppet Show' had Piiiigs In Spaaaaaace!
You might not think that counts as flying pigs, but I think it does. Because their ship, The 'Swine Trek', was actually a giant metal pig.

Ha ha! That show was sooo hilarious. And I had completely forgotten about the Piiiigs In Spaaaaaace part. Good stuff :)

APL wrote:

I don't know where Warsong or Abscissa lives, but here in America things seem to be ruled by this simple (if confusing) rule of thumb :
...
Sex : Bad

Yea, I'm here in the states, too. Which is actually why I get so annoyed at the whole "Sex = bad" thing: anywhere you turn, you just can't get away from it, no matter how absurd it is :/. And it's not like anyone here bothers to listen to reason...

APL wrote:

Asylum? Now that everybody knows his name he'll probably run for office!

Jeez... you know what the scariest part of that is? That it could actually happen. :/

------------------------
Abscissa -
Proud "Drug Dealer"

Abscissa wrote:

APL wrote:

Asylum? Now that everybody knows his name he'll probably run for office!

Jeez... you know what the scariest part of that is? That it could actually happen. :/

It could be why he's causing this rukus in the first place,

Quote:

------------------------
Abscissa -
Proud "Drug Dealer"

Heh. The topic of this thread makes me want to stand in a dark ally with a trenchcoat saying things like "Pssst, hey buddy, you wanna buy some games?".

Also, just so no one gets the wrong idea I'm not trying to suggest that games have to be violent, My current favorite game is "Katamari Damacy" which is refreshingly peacefull.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

APL
A person that goes off topic and attack another to win a topic does not show you are in a good position. I am typing things facts since if you did not notice it was a long post. Some types like genitive should be general, and sometimes you assume I said something when I quoted form the site.

Also I emailed the guy that had the stat and a lot of things he said were wrong and he ignored the other stats which he does not want to show you which I pointed out to him. It is easy to trick people and all you have to do it show ? the information. We have to account for other factors that prevent negative activity. Look at the crimes reported to the police has been increasing, arrests for drug abuse violations increased, some homicide increased, and many more taken to prevent negative actions from the loose of freedom.

As for freedom the increase in violent crap helps to reduce everyone else?s freedom which many do not see. People see to ignore the cause and affect of things and some think that a negative action can produce a positive outcome and a positive action and produce a negative outcome which is twisted. What ever was bad 30 years ago is ok now and what is bad now will be ok later. I bet no one here took constitutional law classes, and I know most don?t get how freedom works.

To increase safety in the society your freedom decreases! To make people more nuts would require more safety measures which now we have, thanks you everyone. :P

Every time I ask what the average age of people in a forum most are what I expect them to be since I get these simple minded replies. Read the links and stop distorting facts.

warsong wrote:

APL
A person that goes off topic and attack another to win a topic does not show you are in a good position.

APL didn't go offtopic or attack you.

warsong wrote:

It is easy to trick people and all you have to do it show ? the information.

You would know, wouldn't you? Since you're the one propogating all of the half-truths.

warsong wrote:

and stop distorting facts.

Likewise.

Ok, this topic just went to ignore for me. Noise to content ratio just got too high...

Abscissa wrote:

warsong wrote:

APL
A person that goes off topic and attack another to win a topic does not show you are in a good position.

APL didn't go offtopic or attack you.

I don't think I went off topic except for direct replies to Warsong's meandering rambling, but to be fair, I did poke some fun at Warsong's apparent inability to write proper English.

warsong wrote:

I am typing things facts[fast] since [,] if you did not notice[,] it was a long post. Some types[words] like ["]genitive["] should be ["]general["]...

It took me a minute or so to properly parse these two sentences. The first time I read it I thought that your first sentence was claiming that you cited many facts, and that your second sentence was disputing the definition of the word "genitive". Perhaps in the future you should type slower, and create shorter posts. Try to impress us with your intelligence and your command of the facts, not the sheer number of words you can put down on the page.

I don't claim to be the MASTER OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, but I'm relatively confident that I'm communicating effectively.

Miked0801 wrote:

Ok, this topic just went to ignore for me. Noise to content ratio just got too high...

I don't know where this image came from originally, but I love it : http://skizzers.org/andy/tmp/end8uq9oy.jpg
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

APL wrote:

I don't know where this image came from originally, but I love it : http://skizzers.org/andy/tmp/end8uq9oy.jpg

Heheh, that's cool :). I also like this one, although I realize it's just as incriminating to myself as anyone else at this point. (Not sure where this one came from either).

APL wrote:

warsong wrote:

facts[fast]

Hmm, I never would have guessed that one...

Slow and short ;)
Mark Twain said something like "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics? You have to know how to read stats, and the guy on the link presented them to go with his view as I stated.

?the House voted 355-21 for a resolution asking the FTC to investigate the company(Rock Star)? CNN
Apl you get the general points despite the typo. I don?t think you generally went off topic but I am stating a general point on how ?some? goes off topic and attack.

Also the picture is very funny. LOL. We are just explaining, it is not like a war broke out. But the people insult and attack other take it seriously which Abscissa seems to do. Calm down people this is not life or death. If you want to get emotional go write an article to a news site but again you should refrain from attacks. If I was to write an article for a news site I would proofread.

warsong wrote:

Mark Twain said something like "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics? You have to know how to read stats, and the guy on the link presented them to go with his view as I stated.

Oh for christ's sake...

For the last time: If you're going to keep hammering on about how unreliable statistics are, than at least have the decency to apply it to your own argument. First you tell us statistics are unreliable, then you give us a whole page filled with statistics, and now you're saying statistics are unreliable again. Have some damn consistentency.

warsong wrote:

Also the picture is very funny. LOL.

:)

warsong wrote:

We are just explaining, it is not like a war broke out. But the people insult and attack other take it seriously which Abscissa seems to do. Calm down people this is not life or death. If you want to get emotional go write an article to a news site but again you should refrain from attacks.

I *am* calm. I'm just enjoying the chaos :D.

I think everyone agrees in a way but sees it in a different way which I am showing another view for people to think about.

If you look close I did not go against what I said. The stats on the site show violence down but we can not say violent game caused it to move. Police brought the violence down if you look on the chart on how more police enforce the law has increased. The guy uses the rating and put words in to prove his side.

Also I agree parents are to blame but you have to agree that the game designers and game venders are to blame. When a vendor makes sells cigarettes or porno to a kid he can get in trouble, but when he sells M rated games he doesn?t and they sell it to them since they got a profit. As for the people that make it they have a responsibility as well since even x rated movies have a limit on what they can do and even people like Larry Flint agrees that people should not cross the line. The same thing with other forms like entertainment and violence.

We know that parents are busier than ever and can not compete with society for a few reasons and most do not. To expect that all parents to be super parents is not realistic and to regulate it would be interesting but also not realistic. I agree parents are to blame but everyone should take responsibility and have some restraint and creativity. And since we know that many parents are not good and we make these games freely knowing this then we are also to balm if we make it. It is like me seeing a block away that someone is crossing the street and press the gas to hit them and when I do I say it is not my fault since I did not have the stop sigh. Killing one person you

If you do the math you will see that getting a kick out of violence doesn?t help. You agree that it might be small percent that violence has a negative impact and the more accepted it becomes more violence is introduced which increases the percentage.

Another negative aspect is the desensitization in how the more you get use to it the more extreme it has to be so that your get a sensation again since the original trick doesn?t do it for you. And every time it gets pushes more and more and we loose track it. Alfred Hitchcock was a great horror movie maker and he did not show penetration of the knife contacting the skin and understood that to let people?s imagination adjust to how violent it can be. Some wanted to push it more since they don?t care about the consequences and do it for the money to show the gore. Then that gore doesn?t do it for us and we need more gore and more extreme gore.

The answers are not as simple as some might think and people need to take into account many factors.

Miked0801 wrote:

Ok, this topic just went to ignore for me. Noise to content ratio just got too high...

Good plan. I'm not sure what was up with flying pigs, but Twinkle Star Sprites has them if that is somehow important. (by ADK, for the MVS; there may be a playstation version)

-Brendan

It is common for people to "ignore" facts just look at this article that says:
"Parents 'ignore game age ratings'"

"A study commissioned by the UK games industry found that parents let children play games for adults, even though they knew they were 18-rated."

""Most parents think their child is mature enough so that these games will not influence them," Modulum researcher Jurgen Freund told a games conference." LOL Have you ever met a child think they are immature? Most people now think they are impervious to anything and that their kid is better than other which it would be an insult. Some parents are humble and know that they and their kids are not impervious and take action but logically you can not expect most parents to follow this in a society like this.

"Parents perceive age ratings as a guide but not as a definite prohibition,"

"It raises more questions than answers," commented Nintendo

People have lost some since of responsibility weather it be the industry or the parents it all goes together as a whole in society and to say that only one side should play ball while the other side does whatever it wants it hypocritical.

Here we go again:

warsong wrote:

I think everyone agrees in a way but sees it in a different way which I am showing another view for people to think about.

Not really.

warsong wrote:

Also I agree parents are to blame but you have to agree that the game designers and game venders are to blame.

To blame for what? There is absolutely nothing to be blamed for.

warsong wrote:

When a vendor makes sells cigarettes or porno to a kid he can get in trouble, but when he sells M rated games he doesn?t and they sell it to them since they got a profit.

Vendors sell sandwiches and pizza to kids to make a profit, and don't get in trouble for it. I guess that means we should outlaw selling food to kids. Dumbass.

warsong wrote:

As for the people that make it they have a responsibility as well since even x rated movies have a limit on what they can do and even people like Larry Flint agrees that people should not cross the line.

1. Larry Flint's opinion is irrelevant. He's an expert on jack shit. Why do you continue to insist his opinion makes any difference either way?
2. Learn how to avoid run-on sentences.

warsong wrote:

We know that parents are busier than ever and can not compete with society for a few reasons and most do not. To expect that all parents to be super parents is not realistic and to regulate it would be interesting but also not realistic.

If they're too busy, then that's their own fault for committing themselves to more than they can handle.

warsong wrote:

I agree parents are to blame...

To blame for what? And, I never agreed with anything of that sort, anyway.

warsong wrote:

It is like me seeing a block away that someone is crossing the street and press the gas to hit them and when I do I say it is not my fault since I did not have the stop sigh.

Knock it off with the run-on sentences.

warsong wrote:

Killing one person you

Knock it off with the gibberish.

warsong wrote:

If you do the math you will see that getting a kick out of violence doesn?t help.

What does that have to do with math? Do what math? Show me what "math" you are talking about.

warsong wrote:

You agree that it might be small percent that violence has a negative impact and the more accepted it becomes more violence is introduced which increases the percentage.

No, I certainly do NOT agree with this "spiral" of violence theory of yours.

warsong wrote:

Another negative aspect is the desensitization in how the more you get use to it the more extreme it has to be so that your get a sensation again since the original trick doesn?t do it for you. And every time it gets pushes more and more and we loose track it. Alfred Hitchcock was a great horror movie maker and he did not show penetration of the knife contacting the skin and understood that to let people?s imagination adjust to how violent it can be. Some wanted to push it more since they don?t care about the consequences and do it for the money to show the gore. Then that gore doesn?t do it for us and we need more gore and more extreme gore.

Desensitization is a load of bullshit. The only thing media violence desensitizes you to is media violence, NOT real violence.

warsong wrote:

It is common for people to "ignore" facts just look at this article that says:
"Parents 'ignore game age ratings'"

"A study commissioned by the UK games industry found that parents let children play games for adults, even though they knew they were 18-rated."

Those are NOT "facts" that are being ignored. And the only thing it proves is that parents just don't give a shit nearly as much as you retarded moral crusaders claim they do.

warsong wrote:

""Most parents think their child is mature enough so that these games will not influence them," Modulum researcher Jurgen Freund told a games conference." LOL Have you ever met a child think they are immature? Most people now think they are impervious to anything and that their kid is better than other which it would be an insult. Some parents are humble and know that they and their kids are not impervious and take action but logically you can not expect most parents to follow this in a society like this.

Do parents think their kids can drink alcohol without consequences? No. Do parents think that their kids can smoke cigarettes without consequences? No. Obviously, parents do NOT think their kids are impervious and better than others. So obviously, this argument of yours is complete bullshit.

warsong wrote:

"Parents perceive age ratings as a guide but not as a definite prohibition,"

Which is EXACTLY as they were intended. Just like movie ratings. Just like music's "parental advisory" label, etc. If you think the ratings were intended as a prohibition, then that's conclusive proof you're a fucking moron.

warsong wrote:

People have lost some since of responsibility weather it be the industry or the parents it all goes together as a whole in society and to say that only one side should play ball while the other side does whatever it wants it hypocritical.

Knock it off with the gibberish.

Learn some basic spelling and sentence structure, damn kid.

------

Abscissa -
Proud "Drug" Dealer

"I sell drugs to the kids, 'cause that's what pays.
Make a couple of hundred, in just one day."
- KMFDM: Money

warsong wrote:

Games are time consuming. It should have something to give to people.

They do. It's called "entertainment".
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

And the use value of entertainment is the maintenance of sanity.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

warsong wrote:

The stats on the site show violence down but we can not say violent game caused it to move.

You can't say that violent games have had an effect on real-world violence? Isn't that the whole point you're trying to argue? So you admit that there are no facts to back up your position, but you want us to agree with you anyway?

Here's a tip : "It just makes sense" or "It's common sense" is not an argument. If you believe in something but don't know why, you're usually just fooling yourself.

Warsong wrote:

Also I agree parents are to blame

Are to blame for what? The decrease in youth violence? Good for them.

warsong wrote:

If you do the math you will see that getting a kick out of violence doesn?t help. You agree that it might be small percent that violence has a negative impact and the more accepted it becomes more violence is introduced which increases the percentage.

Wow, I don't remember learning any of this in math class. They just taught us about calculus and discrete math.

warsong wrote:

have a responsibility as well since even x rated movies have a limit on what they can do

If I understand your garbled, toddler-style English then I think you mean that it's prohibited to sell NC17 movies to children. This is correct. (There is no rating 'X'. After 'R' comes 'NC17'. 'X' is just a meaningless buzzword.) It is also prohibited to sell AO games to children.

So .... what's your point?

(If you mean to say there's a limit to what a NC17 movie can show, then you are not correct. If you can film it without committing a crime, then as far as I know you're pretty much all clear for releasing it as an adults-only movie. At least in the U.S.A.)

Warsong wrote:

It is like me seeing a block away that someone is crossing the street and press the gas to hit them and when I do I say it is not my fault since I did not have the stop sigh.

If you really believe killing a stranger in cold blood is just like making a computer game, then perhaps you should consider asking your parents to get you some professional mental help and let the grown-ups play whatever game they like.

Warsong wrote:

then we are also to balm

And so then the duck says "Just put it on my bill."
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

Experts research Vs opinions this seems to come down to and many ignore the research.
The point of the topic was for people to make meaningful games and not make people addicted to games that are as negative as drugs. This talk about violent games came up in the middle of discussions.

Anyway, on the news time and time again it states the psychiatrists that say it makes kids more violent. Another said it does have a negative impact to make kids do more negative things like cursing, not thinking logically, etc.

Watching a violent movie or news is one thing since you are watching someone else do it, in a video game you are taking job from you doing it. Acting it out is another. People that love to play a criminal have a twisted mind. If their was a video game to do evil things in the early days people would have been locked up but now that we live in brainwashing politically correct backwards society it is ok.

The venders sell M rated games to minors and only one state has it illegal for that to happen. And the game industry is fighting that ruling since they want minors to play games that are not suited for them. They know it is not allowed, they know they market it for kids, they know parents do not monitor, and they know people will side with them since people are selfish and do not think of others so they push for it. You call that looking after your interests and caring about you? If so then we need a reality check. People have a right to make violent games but when no one wants to take responsibility and makes only these games then it shows they do not care about the consumers. Rockstar keeps lying to people and people keep trusting them as if they are saints.

We have enough junk in the world we do not need more. Plenty of researched evidence which the links before gave some examples, but many ignore the evidence. A bunch of atheists making games that feel they have no obligation and think there should be no role models and to have everyone present bad things to market to kids and parents have to go against multi billion dollar marketing.

And to think a game like GTA SA is the first AO rates games to be marketed as big as a car advertisement to be on highway bill boards, painted on buildings, etc. If you shove crap in peoples face they will get the crap. GTA should have been AO from the beginning.

Someone else said this about presenting negative games.
?Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Mat 18:7 KJV)
The offender is responsible.?
?Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. (1Co 8:13 KJV)
So what comes to parents, sure they are responsible but so are the offenders.?

I think some like to fool themselves to think making pointless games are good for them and others. Doesn?t anyone feel any responsibility? Doesn?t anyone wants to make something worth playing that gives something positive to people?

Like a historians said that Humans are just as barbaric as the roman gladiator times. So why do people want to act like savages than act civil? Do people like to make and act like barbaric psychopaths to relax? Putting fuel to the fire does not help the situation but make it worse.

warsong wrote:

Experts research Vs opinions this seems to come down to and many ignore the research.

I'll say! So lets have some research : http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html

Warsong wrote:

People that love to play a criminal have a twisted mind.

I like to play "Sid Meier's Pirates". Does this mean that deap down inside I'm really a twisted individual who should be hung for piracy on the high seas?

Warsong wrote:

If their was a video game to do evil things in the early days people would have been locked up

Yea, and people were ignorant savages back then. They married at age 15 and died in their thirties. And they believed that witches and demons lurked around every corner.

They didn't need violent games because kids were generally armed (with either gun or bow depending on era) before their tenth birthday and could go slaughter the local fauna to their heart's content.

And even then, if you'd ever read a history book in your entire life you'd know that violent entertainment is nothing new. Think bare-handed boxing leagues. Think Roman Coliseum.

Warsong wrote:

but now that we live in brainwashing politically correct backwards society it is ok.

Yea, There's nothing more politically correct than pretending to have sex with a prostitute and then then blow her head off to get your money back.

Do you even think about these things before you type them? Or are you intentionally trolling me for sport?

Warsong wrote:

And the game industry is fighting that ruling since they want minors to play games that are not suited for them.

As well they should fight it. Government censorship is expressly forbidden by the constitution of this great nation. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks it's a good idea to take away our freedoms can go live in China. Freedom is supposed to be the reason the U.S.A. exists in the first place.

Warsong wrote:

You call that looking after your interests and caring about you? If so then we need a reality check.

And here it is :
REALITY CHECK: Look out for yourself.

Warsong wrote:

it shows they do not care about the consumers.

I am a happy customer of Rockstar. You think they don't care that I'm happy?

Warsong wrote:

Rockstar keeps lying to people and people keep trusting them as if they are saints.

1) Lieing? They've got a website up that tells all about the hot-coffee mods, as well as offers an anti-patch.
2) I don't expect the people I do business with to be saints. Saints don't go into business.

Warsong wrote:

We have enough junk in the world we do not need more.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure."

Quote:

Plenty of researched evidence which the links before gave some examples, but many ignore the evidence.

Pretend I'm stupid. Show me those links again. Is it the BBC article that tells about the brainscans that show playing video games is similar to imagining violence?(Make Believe == Make Believe? Big Surprise!) That's the only actual research I remember you linking to. Everything else was "Expert opinions" (ie: Old guys pontificating without data.)

Warsong wrote:

A bunch of atheists making games that feel they have no obligation...

Woa, woa, Woa! I've gotta say this is the first thing you've said that's offended me. I do not like the implication that you need to believe in God to be ethical, especially since more and bloodier wars in this planet's history have been fought in the name of religion than anything else.

Ethics is the act of thinking about what is best for society. You don't need to rely on age-old wisdom for that if you've got two brain-cels to rub together.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us which religions you think people must belong to in order to create socially acceptable, non-violent games.

I sure hope the Shintoists make that list, because if not, that'd wipe out a good portion of the world's GBA games. (And console games!)

WarSong wrote:

[Matthew 18:7] [1 Corinthians 8:13]

I suggest actually reading the bible cover to cover. Especially the Old Testament. It's loaded with all manner of exciting violence and brutality, and God is A-OK with the majority of it.

WarSong wrote:

Like a historians said that Humans are just as barbaric as the roman gladiator times. So why do people want to act like savages than act civil? Do people like to make and act like barbaric psychopaths to relax?

We are born with our animal instincts. The only difference between us and our savage ancestors is that we wish to exercise our animal instincts in a more civilized way.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

You are giving examples without understanding the full meaning of them. And you are twisting things around that do not relate.

Also your link?s did not do the studies right. They are people whose brains are not in the development stages. They even admit ?their study didn?t concentrate solely on younger teenagers, ?we cannot say that teenagers might not experience different effects.??
?interestingly, older players in their study were ?perhaps more strongly influenced?
A slue of errors on that report.

This point about violence is a tug of war. Good intentions can not help and doing so can make things worse than taking safety precautions.

If you have kids you can do what you want but would you want to gamble with their lives?

I see how you interpret things in an odd way just like how you twist what I mean about politically correct. It is PC to tell people that they should do what they want and not worry about consequences. It is like these people that eat and get fat and we can not state that what they eat it not healthy and they complain that there is no link to eating junk food and not working out to being fat. Society has become that everything is good and nothing is bad but when bad happens the people that say watch out for bad are considered bad.

You want to sell minors mature rated games and you talk about freedom? Brainwashing kids is not freedom but propaganda. Go read a book called ?the marketing of evil? in how people like yourself get influenced to say silly things in what the liberals have done which they themselves that make up the BS laugh at other liberals that believe it.

A lot of what you say is backwards and you need to step back and understand the other side well. Rockstar does not care you are happy to make you happy but for them to get rich off your delusions of what happy is. The means justify the ends but so far all you have presented it that the ends justify the means. Please think about it.

You say saints don?t go into business, so are you saying if you go u will be bad?
As for links that I said before
http://www.smith.edu/educ/student%20work/violence/Quest.htm
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/facts/mediafacts.asp

I see I hit a nerve when I said atheist. Atheism is a religion as stated by the courts since that is a belief on how to live their life. So I kind of agree that religion starts wars but the wrong ones like atheism. The only people that do no have a religion might be nihilism since they are what they think. Christianity for example says to not kill and people that do not act Christian. The rulers act like bosses just like business men and as you stated are not saints. And many of them have a psychopathic personality and tend to be more atheistic. With atheism the ends justify the means is an ok for many, but for Christianity the means justify the ends. Other religions like Satanism is similar to atheism which is anti Christian which some atheists say they are. Other religious views is the Muslim religion which that says a lot of bad things which goes against christianity which I will not bother indicating since that is another topic. Christ never said to fight a war for him and people that do start wars go against Christianity and act more like Atheists, Satanists, Muslims, or some other views. But this is another topic and maybe you should talk about it in a religious forum. Again read the book? marketing of evil? how people are being manipulated.

You are persistent to look reply but why don?t you use that to look for the truth and to do that try to pretend you are a lawyer defending the other side that you are so convincing you believe it. ;) If you want to talk about it in another place come to the game site christiancoder and ask them some questions.

You talk about ethics but that came from came from Christianity and Christianity came with the help of ancient philosophers. Now we have this twisted ideology in modern day society that contradicts and manipulates its way to persuade people that go against real intellects.

As for the Jewish OT violence that has a purpose you can learn something. Saying history that has violence you learn from it. Acting out violence to enjoy it is messed up in many ways. Again stop twisting things around because it will make you twisted. Your negative assumptions to validate your negative views does not help make 2 wrongs become right.

Have you ever heard of "The conversion of a savage to Christianity is the conversion of Christianity to savagery." By George Bernard Shaw
Meaning ?"The great danger of conversion in all ages has been that when the religions of the high mind is offered to the lower mind, the lower mind, feeling its fascination without understanding it, and being incapable of rising to it, drags it down to its level by degrading it.""? http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/shaw.shtml
"People that thinks dinner consists of eating a deli sandwich from Arby's while watching Friends is neither Christian nor civilized." Dr. Thomas Fleming"

So let?s not bring good things or things that can have a positive potential to a degenerated level. If you want come to the other post ask your questions.

Yea, warsong, you're right: I am an evil devil worshipper, and I love corrupting the children of the word and turning them into godless psycopaths, because it gets me off. Go ahead and try to stop me.

:)

----------
"I sell drugs to the kids, 'cause that's what pays.
Made a couple of hundred, in just one day."
- KMFDM: Money
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

Last edited by Abscissa on Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

Isn't this thread locked yet? ;)

<sarcasm>Why lock it? Nobody's been compared to Hitler yet!</sarcasm>

warsong wrote:

You talk about ethics but that came from came from Christianity and Christianity came with the help of ancient philosophers.

Ha ha!

You had me going, but now I'm sure you're trolling me.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

gauauu wrote:

<sarcasm>Why lock it? Nobody's been compared to Hitler yet!</sarcasm>

Depends. Did anybody bring up Bionic Commando or Wolfenstein 3D?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

Wow. I look in on this thread every couple of pages and it just gets weirder and weirder.

And it was mighty weird when it started.

Dan.

APL wrote:

warsong wrote:

You talk about ethics but that came from came from Christianity and Christianity came with the help of ancient philosophers.

Ha ha!

You had me going, but now I'm sure you're trolling me.

You've got a good point, APL. I don't think anybody could be stupid enough to think that ethics originated from christianity and still have enough properly functioning brain cells to work a compiler.
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

More fuel for warsong to have fun with:

http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=42cff248-5a1d-4148-a9ea-5ee9adea3158

Quote:

If anything, he said in an interview with the Citizen, it is the opposite: Gory games prevent violence.

"If you look just at something like Grand Theft Auto -- the primary crime you commit in GTA is carjacking, right? You run in and throw somebody out of their car and you jump in their car."

But since the controversial game came out, he says, instances of carjacking have actually fallen by half.

"So it may well be that video games function as a kind of a safety valve -- they let kids who would otherwise be doing violent things for the thrill of it, they let them get out those kind of feelings sitting at home at a screen. This may have a deterrent effect on violence rather than an increasing effect."

BTW, Anyone else find it ironic that the person complaining so much about violence goes by the name "warsong"?
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

Lol - ippon for Abscissa. :)

Miked0801 wrote:

Lol - ippon for Abscissa. :)

<confused> I googled "ippon", but all I could find were references to Judo? I guess I'm not sure whether to be happy or insulted ;)
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

Full Point - Awarded for a strike that shows correct form and power. Probably better spelled in Japanese. It was a compliment. :)

Miked0801 wrote:

Full Point - Awarded for a strike that shows correct form and power. Probably better spelled in Japanese. It was a compliment. :)

Yay for me! :)

Arigato Gozaimasu. ;)
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

I have a 11yr old brother, and hes played all my gta series..and before anyone scolds me for doing so, let me tell you this, my responsibility is to explain to him things in life...Such as well the who, what, where, why, and when of life..weve played ton of violent games, from spawn, to gta, even doom... I never seen him jack a kids bike, or curse at the teacher...So the case is people just have to educate the young ones... My parents are always working so you know I have to set the good example..

oh yeah and a can of whoop ass helps once in a while

plus the ESBR make these ratings because their some parents or whatever that depend on a TV or a video game console to babysit their kid, while they go bone in the bedroom or something, I mean im seriouss Ive seen shit happens.......I mean now I know it wasint a stork that brought my little brother I tell you that much...lol

GBAJAY wrote:

plus the [ESRB] make these ratings because their some parents or whatever that depend on a TV or a video game console to babysit their kid, while they go bone in the bedroom or something

Except usually "something" means "work to keep a roof over the kid's head between when the kid gets off school and when the parents get off work", right? Or do you claim that all households should have one stay-at-home parent even in this economy and even with this divorce rate?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

tepples wrote:

Except usually "something" means "work to keep a roof over the kid's head between when the kid gets off school and when the parents get off work", right?

Not necessarily. One of my aunts sits her kids in front of videos to pacify them. I think thats a shame. She does work, if that matters.

As far as the ippon deal goes, it's probably one of these:
一本【いっぽん】 (n) (1) one long cylindrical thing; (2) one version; (3) (a) certain book; (4) (a) blow; (5) an experienced geisha; (P)
一本勝負【いっぽんしょうぶ】 (n) one-game match
一本取る【いっぽんとる】 (v5r) to beat; to gain a point; to upset
一本道【いっぽんみち】 (n) (a) direct unforked road

All taken from wwwjdic. What sport is it from?

-Brendan

Lol - hijack a thread :)

From sparring matches - usually Karate. Ippon is to gain a full point. There is a 1/2 point strike which is usually a glancing blow or a strike without form or power - nipon if I remeber right, but I'm really pulling from deep memory banks for that one. Nipon also has a TON of meanings as well :)

Miked0801 wrote:

There is a 1/2 point strike which is usually a glancing blow or a strike without form or power - nipon if I remeber right, but I'm really pulling from deep memory banks for that one.

Could it be something aline the lines of "hanpon", perhaps? IIRC (though I might not be), "han" is the word for half.
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

That sounds correct. Funny, once you say it in your head, it sounds right. I never did get past yellow in Karate - but I did you much further in Kung-fu before running out of money and flexibility :)

Ignoring the facts won?t help you. And if all you have to say weak 1 liner arguments and get praised by someone opinion and exceptions then that is as far as you can go. You guys keep asking the same questions and showing the same information that has been answered as well. It is obvious we need more meaningful games since I do not see the games helping much in your arguments which you guys completely do not get it. BRAVO

And again people ignore the facts and I don?t know if people do it intentionally or not. If we go with how some people think then maybe the 1950's were the most violent, immoral, and less educated time since they did not have games or let alone violent ones, but o wait now is more violent than then. People in 1950 did not act as bad as they do in Louisiana how they are shooting at the people that are trying to rescue them.

As for ippon it was said in SNK's Samurai Shodown when you win a round. So again people that ask don?t get the point of a meaningful game and to put more useful things in a game so that you learn ipon means point. Keep asking question because it is obvious you don?t know.

The entire point of this post was to make meaningful games than addicting meaningless games, and if people got more information we would not be having this talk as much. But as big as this post is, it shows people need more useful information since many don?t get it. Keep playing crap and you will learn crap, it is as simple as that. Make a violent addicting game but it better teach a lot of things or else all you have is a game for wannabe psychopaths.

If you want to play games to take out aggression that won?t help you solve the problem, but delay you from solving it. Talk about running way from responsibility. But if you can not solve it have some things meaningful in the game to at least break even.

Every time you talk you are proving me right but so many don?t get it and everyone that doesn?t praises each other which is amusing, so thanks for the entertainment.

Good luck ;)

warsong wrote:

Ignoring the facts won?t help you...You guys keep asking the same questions and showing the same information that has been answered as well.

Ditto.

warsong wrote:

BRAVO

*takes a bow*

warsong wrote:

And again people ignore the facts and I don?t know if people do it intentionally or not.

Ignoring? You're still ignoring my advice on learning grammar. As an example, this quote of yours is known as a run-on sentence and should have been split into two.

warsong wrote:

If we go with how some people think then maybe the 1950's were the most violent, immoral, and less educated time since they did not have games or let alone violent ones, but o wait now is more violent than then. People in 1950 did not act as bad as they do in Louisiana how they are shooting at the people that are trying to rescue them.

Every time you grab the keyboard you prove what an idiot you are. It might be worth your while to stop doing that.

warsong wrote:

The entire point of this post was to make meaningful games than addicting meaningless games

<sarcasm>And pretending developers are really drug dealers was a brilliant way to make that point.</sarcasm>

EDIT: Oops, it seems I misread that quote. I thought you said "make meaningful games rather than addicting meaningless games", but it appears that's not actually what you said. So alright: as per your request I will make meaningful games, and then I will make addicting meaningless games. Happy now?

warsong wrote:

which is amusing, so thanks for the entertainment.

You're welcome. Just be sure not to overdose on our entertainment or get addicted. It's apperently a deadly drug after all...
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

The 1950's were actually likely to be the most peaceful era these United States have ever seen.
(Click here. Page Four)

This graph might seem a little surprising so allow me to explain.

Since our country's creation it's citizens were playing violent video games, causing our rich history of violence and brutality. It's a long, sad story that starts even before the birth of our nation. In colonial days, as today, simple, free video games were often used to drum up political support for one cause or another. No less a personage than Paul Revere, known primarily for his work as a silversmith and a newspaper publisher, also had a series of flash games designed as propaganda pieces against the British authority. His controversial side-scroller "The Boston Massacre" was wildly popular and is often credited as one of the key factors in drumming up anti-British sentiment. The British also commissioned a much more expensive game called "The King's Army", an FPS that gave a romanticized, but semi realistic portrayal of life in His Majesty's army. unfortunately that game's online experience was quickly ruined by campers and griefers who sniped from the bushes instead of marching in straight lines. Regardless, the effect of these games and others like them was immeasurable, causing massive youth violence in the citizens of both nations.

This problem reached it's peak during our nation's expansionist phase in the mid 1800s when an entire generation of youths, who had grown up on such titles as "Custer's Revenge" and "The Oregon Trail", took it upon themselves to slaughter entire tribes of native Americans. The natives, whose nomadic lifestyle caused them to prefer portable systems instead of home consoles, were overpowered and decimated to a minuscule fraction of their original population. The exact reasons for this crushing defeat will never be known for sure, but many experts believe that the reduced violence and less realistic graphics of their portable systems left them unprepared to deal with an onslaught of U.S. soldiers hardened by the more immersive and violent PC and console titles.

This pattern continued throughout the next century. Titles came and went, different genres became popular and then faded back into relative obscurity, but the ultimate result of all these video games was the same : Violence, and lots of it.

But then, just in time for the 1950s, crime dropped to record lows and, for a brief decade, created a nearly picture-perfect nation. The precise dynamics of this change is a hotly debated topic in academic circles, but the main point that most historians agree on is that in the mid 1940s people stopped playing and writing violent video games. It is widely believed that the sudden popularity of the television is responsible for this change. Another theory is that wartime shortages prevented the production of game disks and carts, and war-weary soldiers returning from Europe and Japan were too busy starting their new lives that they had little time to invest in an activity as addictive as video games. Whatever the cause, the end result was striking. By the year 1950 zero video games were being produced, and the art of creating them or even playing them was completely lost. Video games had become a distant, quickly fading memory, and America was entering a new glorious era of peace and prosperity.

Alas, This single bright period of our history when the black art of addictive video games was completely forgotten was not to last; In 1962 "SpaceWar" was invented at MIT, re-introducing the addictive video game to the American People and dooming our great nation to eternal violence.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

Ah ha ha ha! Awesome! :)
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

Miked0801 wrote:

Nipon also has a TON of meanings as well :)

When typed in romaji, yes. The meanings depend on the kanji.

Abscissa wrote:

IIRC (though I might not be), "han" is the word for half.

The "han" you speak of is a kanji: 半

半ハンなか.ば T1 は half; middle; odd number; semi-; part-

Clearly this isn't the right "hanpon" =)
版本【はんぽん】 (n) book printed from woodblocks

I couldn't find the word for the half strike in the limited time I have.

-Brendan

Getting off topic to talk about me not caring to explain it well is also not the issue. Attacking the other since you can not stay on topic also does not help your argument.

Every disagreement shows that one side is wrong or at least ? right. And the site that is wrong would benefit more to play video games that are meaningful to learn more to be on the mark in discussions. So any way to look at it I am on the mark. ;)

Also, funny mock up APL. ;)

Anyone ever heard of the guy that played only memory game and he gets prizes for his ability for being the best? Also many benefit from playing memory games and do better in school. I know the fastest speed readers in the state and they do not play a lot of meaningless games and would not need mindless games to have fun since they would make the money to go places to have fun. That is one example of meaningful games, and if people want to not gain anything then they would need to play more silly games since they have nothing else better to do. ;)

Keep living a fantasy and you will get only a fantasy. Why enjoy playing a virtual sports car while another actually spent his time to get real abilities to get paid to buy and drives an expensive sports car.

warsong wrote:

Getting off topic to talk about me not caring to explain it well is also not the issue. Attacking the other since you can not stay on topic also does not help your argument.

1. Only an idiot would insist on believing that writing incomprehensible gibberish is an effective way to make an argument. Congratulations.

2. In case you haven't already noticed (and I've already pointed this out before), I realized about four pages ago that reason was completely lost on you, so now I'm just having fun screwing around.

Want some crack with that tetris?
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

Abscissa wrote:

Want some crack with that tetris?

Are THC and LSD ok?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

tepples wrote:

Abscissa wrote:

Want some crack with that tetris?

Are THC and LSD ok?

lol! For some reason that hadn't even occurred to me when I wrote that. Nice catch :)
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

Believe what you will. If people ?prefer? or are stuck with playing virtual cars instead of real ones, of fight monsters to get money instead of making real money then that is not my problem. The more they play pointless games the more they lost the meaning.
As Socrates ?I cannot teach anybody anything; I can only make them think.? But some people are accustomed to not thinking.

Also, that Tetris game is interesting. It makes the game visually challenging so that people have to concentrate more. They could have done more with the game. For example, they should put other challenges like flip the screen horizontal and vertical which would make the controls challenging as well.

Haha! Now he's comparing himself to Socrates!
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

warsong wrote:

Also, that Tetris game is interesting. It makes the game visually challenging so that people have to concentrate more. They could have done more with the game. For example, they should put other challenges like flip the screen horizontal and vertical which would make the controls challenging as well.

In the later levels, that actually happens.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

Tepples
Try also playing super Tetris and control both players at the same time. Now that is challenging. ;)

---More Quotes for super fan APL lol
"If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -Catherine

"Pay attention to the young, and make them just as good as possible." Socrates

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." Mahatma Gandhi

"If you seek violence, we will seek to put you in jail." Edward Koch lol

"Its [Communism's] unfortunate association with violence encourages a certain evil tendency in human beings." Jawaharlal Nehru

"Must I do all the evil I can before I learn to shun it? Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up." Mahatma Gandhi

"The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant. . . . His culture is based on 'I'm not too sure.'" H. L. Mencken

and finaly
"Half a truth is often a great lie." Benjamin Franklin

;)

warsong wrote:

Keep living a fantasy and you will get only a fantasy. Why enjoy playing a virtual sports car while another actually spent his time to get real abilities to get paid to buy and drives an expensive sports car.

Are you actually suggesting that people who plays video games doesn't understand that it would be more fun/thrilling/cool to drive a real sports car than a virtual one?
Of all my friends (most people who play videogames actually have those too) noone of them would rather play a game involving sports cars than drive the real deal, that is far from the point.

Do you drive a sports car?
_________________
I probably suck, my not is a programmer.

He's doing it again. He's quoting Socrates again.

Note to Warsong : Socrates was decidedly anti-censorship.

According to Plato, Socrates was executed for encouraging young people to think and talk about ideas and thoughts that the conservative government believed was inappropriate or dangerous.

Socrates became a revered martyr for the cause of free speech and free expression of ideas.

When you compare yourself 'teaching' us that some games are evil and should not be published to Socrates teaching his students, all you do is illustrate to us that you don't have a clue who Socrates was or why he is so respected.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

Look at what the president of Amazon drives. But if you don't get the example about driving then it just hurts you.

APL
?Anti-censorship?? Go post kid porn and see how far it gets you. See if you can win in courts. ;)

Socrates says it clearly and if you disagree then that is your opinion. You can not break everything down. Break down censorship on topics to make people think not to talk about what is a total perversion. The point of freedom of speech as well was to let people be free to talk about things without being attacked and they knew where to draw the line on things that are not good. Almost all the founding fathers said bad things about a certain religious group, or race which they do not tell people in school and that there is censorship, which you would probably be against what they say too and not want them to talk.

Now if you think Socrates contradicts when he says "Pay attention to the young, and make them just as good as possible." He did not say do what you want and that it?s all good. And to think that you picked one point to attack and think you won is like a boxer getting hit 100 times and you land one weak blow and you cheer. Lol But the fact remains that you are still loosening despite that you ignore the many hits.

Has anyone seen the news how a mother tried to be cool and let the kids do whatever they want and she got in trouble for it? She had a court date but she was in a car accident and could not make it. You are probably saying poor women lol. Well she went into an accident for letting the kids do what they want by letting a 14 year old drive the car and the 3 kids and herself had to go to the hospital so the court date is postponed. She said she wanted to be a cool mom.

good luck

warsong wrote:

Look at what the president of Amazon drives.

uh, probably an automobile of some sort. An expensive one I'll wager. Is this relevant somehow?

warsong wrote:

?Anti-censorship?? Go post kid porn and see how far it gets you. See if you can win in courts. ;)

I'm pretty sure that as long as no actual children were involved in its production the courts usually (But not always) side with freedom on this one. It's not an experiment I'm particularly interested in doing, and besides I can't draw very well at all, so you're going to just have to try this one on your own.

Anyway, The courts don't enter into it. We were discussing Socrates. The courts didn't agree with Socrates either. Remember? I just said he was executed for preaching anti-censorship and free speech.

Please try to keep up. Reading is not hard.

Warsong wrote:

Socrates says it clearly and if you disagree then that is your opinion. You can not break everything down.

You quoted him saying "Pay attention to the young, and make them just as good as possible.". Fair enough. But if you've knew anything about Socrates you'd realize you and he have completely different ideas about how to make children "as good as possible".

Socrates believed in exposing children to as much as possible, (more than the law allowed) and letting them think and choose for themselves.

This is not even close to what you're advocating.

Warsong wrote:

Break down censorship on topics to make people think not to talk about what is a total perversion.

I can't even break down this sentence!

Warsong wrote:

Almost all the founding fathers said bad things about a certain religious group, or race which they do not tell people in school and that there is censorship, which you would probably be against what they say too and not want them to talk.

Big deal. There are lots of people I wish would shut their mouths.

But if I ever suggest that they don't have a right to say or publish whatever the heck they want then you have my permission to come to my apartment and punch me across the jaw.

(Hint : Pretend you're a pizza man. Otherwise I might not answer the door.)

Warsong wrote:

Now if you think Socrates contradicts when he says He did not say do what you want and that it?s all good.

Of course not. No one in their right mind would say you can do anything you like.
We're talking about freedom of to say or publish whatever you like.
(ie : I propose that Socrates would be in favor of letting children play "San Andreas" if they want to, but I propose that he would also be strongly against actually stealing cars, shooting prostitutes, etc, etc.)

warsong wrote:

And to think that you picked one point to attack and think you won is like [stupid analogy]

Oh, I'm well aware. I stopped debating six pages ago. Now I'm just taunting you for sport.

warsong wrote:

But the fact remains that you are still loosening despite that you ignore the many hits.

I'll be sure to tighten that up a bit.

warsong wrote:

She said she wanted to be a cool mom.

If she more properly understood the difference between reality and fantasy she'd have just given the kids a video game about driving a car.

However, lets take a moment to think about this. I haven't read about this case, but according to you this woman ended up in the Hospital with injuries from an automobile accident indirectly caused by some sort of mental illness. And you're berating me because you think I might feel sorry for this person?

Personally, I hope that her injuries were not severe and that she receives whatever mental help she needs. Why do I hope this? Because I'm a decent human being.

warsong wrote:

good luck

Thanks! With anything in particular, or just in general?
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

warsong,

If you think games are so terrible, we look forward to your next contribution to the game development world. Oh, and what games are you playing these days? Can you let us know? Cheers.
_________________
Modasi Games
www.modasi.com

FluBBa wrote:

warsong wrote:

Keep living a fantasy and you will get only a fantasy. Why enjoy playing a virtual sports car while another actually spent his time to get real abilities to get paid to buy and drives an expensive sports car.

Are you actually suggesting that people who plays video games doesn't understand that it would be more fun/thrilling/cool to drive a real sports car than a virtual one?
Of all my friends (most people who play videogames actually have those too) noone of them would rather play a game involving sports cars than drive the real deal, that is far from the point.

Do you drive a sports car?

warsong wrote:

Look at what the president of Amazon drives. But if you don't get the example about driving then it just hurts you.

Do you mean that you drive the same car as the president of Amazon? Or are you actually the president of Amazon? Or do you mean that because he has an expensive car (he's rich so I suppose he spends more than most people on his car though that doesn't mean it's sports car) he doesn't enjoy playing racing games? Maybe I don't "get it" but I can't say it really hurts me either.
_________________
I probably suck, my not is a programmer.

APL
The car example was for the other guy to get.

So you say kid porn should be ok? And if you can not have actual kids its ok that in the future people have computer generated graphics of kid porn to cater to people? Now that is twisted. Go ahead do it, if you think its ok either you make a lot of money pleasing perverts or you go to jail. Obviously you have a twisted mind.

Do people have to tell you what is right and wrong for you to know? What next, you will defend a person that kills and their plea is that they didn?t know the law. Lol

Too much freedom takes away freedom if you didn?t know. But I would guess you don't know that. As for Socrates he said ?everything to moderation? but so many don't know where the moderate level is. Just because he says a saying or his action seems to go against it does not mean that the things he said or did is above the other saying and it does not contradict his other saying since his saying give limits or guidance for you to know what to do. If you only choose one thing and ignore the rest it would be like only driving with your steering wheel to the left and you will just go around in circles as you are now.

You say to let kids be exposed to everything but then you and the other complain about its parent?s responsibility. I guess the parents that have the messed up kids think the same as you to let the kids be exposed to everything. If you don't give kids guidance they will go all over the place or driving in a circle. Make up your mind what you want to choose because so far you believe your own BS. I think you like to play too much and maybe you do know what is right and you are just playing the devils advocate, or maybe I am giving you too much credit to think that.

As for the thing you did not get. We are supposed to break censorship so that we can talk about things to help make our lives better. We should not say we are breaking down censorship to perverse life. Politicians about politics to get the truth out. But now freedom is to have the freedom to destroy lives then help lives. But that is another topic which is not suitable for a game site, since I would get in trouble which is BS. Everyone says they are for freedom of speech but are against it when the view it does not side with their own.

You say you wish people can shut their mouths, but I say I encourage the person that disagrees. It is boring when they agree and the person acts like Seinfeld and say ?I know, what?s the deal with it?.

You stopped debating and I was just flexing. ;)

As for parenting Kids need guidance. You have parents say they don't want to be strict and let their 8 year old play GTA unattended. The thing is not about being strict it is about helping the child to be focused more and most parents are afraid of that because of a negative word. I know kids that their parents do not let their kids play ay games and they are one of the top speed readers in the state and get high marks in schools, other start their own business young, others are just more happy, etc. People are as loose in mentality as the as the $!#%$ they go with. Obviously I am not saying that people should not play any games but most people over do it and many games do not give back but make people be in a worse predicament. I know some dedicated gamers that play games over 12 times a day and they are not doing well. The mind gets addicted to thing as simple as games it seems.

Obviously this information will not help you APL since you ignore it but what I say is directed to others that read it.

Byg
Game I am playing now hmmm I played Stratego last week, but I am not currently playing anything. I am assisting a company in a design. Games have to bad or the same since companies are afraid of taking risks. But if you want a play a game try Gamasumo for the gp32. ;)

Flubba
I replied, but if you don't get it then o well. And you are wrong on your assumptions of Amazon. ;)

In general Good luck ;)

warsong wrote:

So you say kid porn should be ok?

I did not express that opinion. My statements on this matter were purely factual.
I do not think this forum is the appropriate place to be discussing pornography of any sort. I suspect that the moderators would prefer us to stay off of the topic.

warsong wrote:

Do people have to tell you what is right and wrong for you to know?

This is exactly what I don't want. I do not want people telling me what is right and wrong.

So, you know, stop doing it. Thanks.

warsong wrote:

Too much freedom takes away freedom if you didn?t know. But I would guess you don't know that. As for Socrates he said ?everything to moderation? but so many don't know where the moderate level is.

Thank god you're here to tell us then.

We'd be lost without you to define the arbitrary point at which you, personally feel something goes from "moderate" to "excessive".

Incidentally, I still recommend that you read (you can do this with books) about Socrates instead of just looking up quotes.

Warsong wrote:

You say to let kids be exposed to everything but then you and the other complain about its parent?s responsibility.

Allow me to clarify. I believe that the parent has the right to make the ultimate decision as to what their child is exposed to. If the parent wants to be a crazy puritan such as yourself and not expose the child to anything, that's the parent's right. But it is the parent's responsibility to enforce their morals on their own children.
No one gets to decide what is media OK for someone else's child. And especially no one gets to decide what media is OK for adults such as myself.

Warsong wrote:

]Make up your mind what you want to choose because so far you believe your own BS.

My mind is made up. I simply don't believe in forcing my morality on others.

That's how you and I are different. You are arrogant enough to believe you know what is best for everyone. I am humble enough (just barely :-) ) to understand that people can have opinions and ideas different than mine. As long as they don't try to force them on others, it is none of my business.

Warsong wrote:

I guess the parents that have the messed up kids think the same as you to let the kids be exposed to everything.

Please cite scientific studies to back up this claim. Thank you.

Warsong wrote:

If you don't give kids guidance they will go all over the place or driving in a circle.

True. Quite right. My parents gave me plenty of guidance. They also let me play Doom and Wolfenstine3d when they came out.

I'm not actually sure what your point here is.

Warsong wrote:

I think you like to play too much and maybe you do know what is right and you are just playing the devils advocate, or maybe I am giving you too much credit to think that.

I know what is right.

What is right is giving people the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that people are so stupid that they can be corrupted by a game.

Warsong wrote:

But that is another topic which is not suitable for a game site, since I would get in trouble which is BS. Everyone says they are for freedom of speech but are against it when the view it does not side with their own.

It's not BS. Here on GBADEV you have as much freedom as the owner of the site feels like giving you. If you want real freedom you'll need your own server.

Warsong wrote:

I know kids that their parents do not let their kids play ay games and they are one of the top speed readers in the state and get high marks in schools, other start their own business young, others are just more happy, etc.

I got high marks in schools. I read quite fast. I've got a job I love, and I'm quite happy.

Believe it or not, playing a violent video game from time to time has not ruined my life.

Also, "Speed Reading" is pretty worthless.

Warsong wrote:

Obviously I am not saying that people should not play any games but most people over do it and many games do not give back but make people be in a worse predicament.

I'm interested in how GTA:SA has put me in a bad predicament. Please explain.

Warsong wrote:

but most people over do it

Can you back up this claim with demographic data. Or did you just make this up?

I don't claim to be an expert, but every time I see an article or report on gamer demographics the largest majority of gamers seems to be the people who play only a couple hours a week or less. (Hint : Majority == Most people. )

Warsong wrote:

Obviously this information will not help you APL since you ignore it but what I say is directed to others that read it.

What information? You just spouted your opinion for eight paragraphs and didn't provide any facts at all. That's not information.

Warsong wrote:

Obviously this information will not help you APL since you ignore it but what I say is directed to others that read it.

I'm busy too being addicted by "We Love Katamari".

Warsong wrote:

Game I am playing now hmmm I played Stratego last week, but I am not currently playing anything.

Wait a moment! Stratego is a board game! I'll bet warsong's mom doesn't let him play computer games.

Warsong wrote:

Games have to bad or the same since companies are afraid of taking risks.

Have I mentioned Katamari Damacy yet? I'm pretty sure I have.
_________________
-Andy L
http://www.depthchasers.com

I'm just waiting for Namco and Harmonix to team up on

Katamari
塊頻度
Frequency

That kind of game would be Teh Drug.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.

warsong,

Quote:

Game I am playing now hmmm I played Stratego last week, but I am not currently playing anything. I am assisting a company in a design. Games have to bad or the same since companies are afraid of taking risks. But if you want a play a game try Gamasumo for the gp32. ;)

Are we to presume you don't play computer games? And that you haven't done for a while? Or can you let us know what games you have played. Preferably commercial ones, not ones you have written yourself. And not board games either. I'm talking about computer games. What was the last game you played to completion???

Quote:

The car example was for the other guy to get.

Can you explain this car example? I know it was for the 'other guy' but I'm not sure anyone gets it.

As for your 'views', do you realise you are posting on gbadev.org? Primarily a GBA (and now DS) home-brew development site. Who do you expect to reach with your 'Game Designer's, Don't be Drug Dealers' rant? The majority of people here are no doubt hobby-ists who wouldn't have the time or resources to make the kinds of game you are talking about even if they wanted to. OK - I'm sure there are a few pro designers and programmers here but these will be primarily GBA/DS people, and again I don't think these platforms have the kinds of games you mean (i.e. GTA). I hardly think you are reaching the right kind of audience here that you want to. Maybe you should be posting on gamasutra or something. But seeing as you can't even convince us that you know what you are talking about, let alone that you are in the right, I would strongly suggest you think twice before posting there.

As an aside, your posts are a little hard to read. It may be a little easier to understand and agree with you if you tidy up your grammar a little, remove seemingly random phrases ('Too much freedom takes away freedom' - did you just make this up???), and stop with the darn Socrates quotes!!!!!!

Although who was it who said:

Quote:

A wise man never argues with a fool, those watching will not be able to tell the difference

_________________
Modasi Games
www.modasi.com

It seems we are delving into other topics. And you assume or twist things around in half of the things you say. It doesn?t matter what you side with as long as you know what the consequences are and the benefits people are missing out on which many don?t.

People have a right to choose what they want right and wrong. You say you are humble lol but you are stubborn to inform people to do what is best for them. If a doctor tells you don't get drunk and drive you can tell him that he should mind his business.

People most likely won?t get directly corrupt by game, but kids can be influenced in a negative way. Also in an indirect way games do corrupt people?s valuable time, and if they feel their time is not worth it then I guess I give people too much credit then since they have nothing else better to do.
LOL Here is an interesting site on technology and children's development http://faculty.washington.edu/pbell/kidtech/

As for most gamers playing too much
The average adult plays over 7.5 hour per week (which is a lot),43% play online games, 35% of gamers are under 18, MMORPG players play on average about 22 hours per week
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000891.php
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/research_documents/studies/video_games/vgc_summary_findings.cfm

You talk about not quoting Socrates but how about what they felt and did what was right? They felt that leisure time should be used to better ones self and learn new things which that was the definition of leisure time originally. But it has been turned around to be used to slack off too much which is the opposite meaning.

?Leisure is the highest use of time. It is the antithesis of "wasting time" or "killing time" with diversions and amusements. Nor is it rest and relaxation; the downtime we need to recover from work should really be considered an extension of work.? Lol
I will post about this separately.

Haven?t you played the video game version of stratego 1&2?
The last big pc game I beat was Y?s 3. Detailed artwork. ;)
I even have the original system super PONG. I had pong but I threw that way years ago since it broke. lol

So many contradictions!

warsong wrote:

It seems we are delving into other topics. And you assume or twist things around in half of the things you say. It doesn?t matter what you side with as long as you know what the consequences are and the benefits people are missing out on which many don?t.

It is you who delve into other topics and twist things around (i.e. a case in point is the title you chose for this topic - game designer's vs. drug dealers). And how do you know that people are unaware of what they are missing out on? In fact, who are you to say they are?? Are you aware of everyone's circumstance?

warsong wrote:

People have a right to choose what they want right and wrong. You say you are humble lol but you are stubborn to inform people to do what is best for them. If a doctor tells you don't get drunk and drive you can tell him that he should mind his business.

Exactly - people have a right to choose. Who are you to tell us otherwise. And why the doctor analogy??? Are you a doctor of games? If I play games, will I die of liver failure? Or do I have more chance of crashing on the way home from the arcade? And you talk about delving into other topics!!

I could go on, but in this case I do have better things to do with my time.
_________________
Modasi Games
www.modasi.com

You have better things to do? Like what play pointless games? Is that better? LOL yeah talk about contradictions.
But you missed the point to Leisure time as this article points out so I guess is am generally right on how time is spend. http://forum.gbadev.org/viewtopic.php?t=7253

As I said people have a right to choose and people have a right to point out that other are going the wrong direction. Which is why I directed you to the article, but you say no and say your opinions without looking at the facts. If you keep being high you will never look at reality.

It also humours me that for all your talk about violent video games, your pseudonym is warsong. Ironic really.
_________________
Modasi Games
www.modasi.com

I've only read the first few and last few pages of this thread, but let me add my 2 cents.

Everybody is completely right in saying they have the right to choose for themselves what they wish to play or experience or learn. Even if I think a particular choice is bad, I do not have the right to take away another person's freedom to make the choice and choose what I believe is bad.

But the matter of the thread, and what Warsong originally stated in the very first post, can be more eloquently summed up: not as "you should not have the right to choose bad things", but "Who are the people who actually create the choices in the first place?"

It is one thing to choose something bad. It is another to create something bad for someone else to choose.

Edmund Spenser, the author of the literary epic, the Faerie Queen (I believe it was an King Arthurian-based epic), wrote in his opening to Sir Phillip Sydney, that the reason he wrote his epic, and spent all those years creating his work, was so that he could make something _good_ that would actually have a good effect on those who made use of it. Sir Phillip wrote A Defense of Poesy in which he defended secular poetry from the Catholic Church, who basically argued that it had nothing but a bad influence, because Phillip believed that poets could still create good works of art.

If I am a game developer, or an artist, or anything, I want to make something that I think is good, and will have a good effect on someone who plays, reads, or sees it. To intentionally create something bad is to waste my time, and waste the time of those who experience it. Spenser says he wrote his work to help the reader become a better person by observing what it is like to be a good and noble man. While this is obviously a little bit grand for the standard puzzle game or platformer, the basic idea is the same.

Of course, you can argue that what I say is "bad", the creator believes it is a good thing. You could assume at this point my argument is worthless. But there's more.

Compare, for example, the recent Johnny Cash movie, to GTA. They both feature, in this case, evidence of a drug counterculture and those who get themselves wrapped up in it (I'm not specifically discussing violence or sexual themes here, as I don't think it applies to the JC/GTA comparison). But in the movie, you can argue and in fact conclude that the overall theme of the story is not the dark side of Cash's life, but the redemption that he finds.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of sex, or the idea of violence, and I suppose even drugs are just that: just substances. They all have effects. But in their portrayal in a media, and in themes like them, you have to ask: what is the purpose of expressing a theme?

I don't really know what the purpose or the theme of GTA is. I've watched friends play it, and it looks like a decent game, but I know little of the story other than the fact that it's got Sam Jackson and lets me tick off the US Army if I kill enough officers.

So I haven't seen the ending. I hear in one of the games they do an artistic throwback to a Scarface movie (or was it the Godfather)? I actually imagine such an artistic salute could be a good and decent thing, and of course many could argue that this game in fact has an art to it.

At any rate, you must decide for yourself, first, what are the ideas that are expressed in a medium, and second, what is the theme?

Good ideas don't make a good product. And good themes can be overshadowed by the ideas involved in the experience (such as the violence of GTA).

If GTA was an uplifting tragedy where the protagonist reformed his life at the end, would I buy it for my children? No. But I'd think about it slightly differently: I'd see it as a story with a theme I appreciate rather than an experience about violence for its own sake.

Now of course, you don't have to look for every product or experience you buy to "uplift" you in some way. Obviously there are many products that sell well despite this ...ah, the sins of business. But, if I must make something, I want it to have such a good theme. I think that is what Warsong is trying to say.

It is not a perfect world, and of course "good" doesn't always sell, and people don't always buy "good". But if I have a choice as to what I want to create, I want to create good.

I believe Warsong wanted to hint at that if you could see the results of the actions of exposing people to either a good, or a bad, influencing experience, then you could conclude that a gamemaker should have some responsibility for what he does.

This is our counterargument, equally valid: that it is the parent or the person's responsibility for what s/he experiences.

But I do not mean to say that I believe gamemakers must accept the responsibility for what they do: I mean to say, that I think gamemakers, ideally, should gladly want and accept the opportunity to make a good thing. This is a personal thing and I can't impose it on anyone else, like all the other choices. But I think this is what the topic was about.

That was much too long, but it was surprisingly pleasant to type.

This thread is still alive?

Omni wrote:

Spenser says he wrote his work to help the reader become a better person by observing what it is like to be a good and noble man. While this is obviously a little bit grand for the standard puzzle game or platformer, the basic idea is the same.

If one can simulate being bad and dishonorable then one can learn why not to be bad and dishonorable without actually having to carry out bad and dishonorable acts in reality.

Why do I have to help the village to get the magic key? Because if I take it by force everyone will hate me, and now I have to take everything else by force.

The goal, of course, is to present the simulation to people who will not model their conduct on the presented bad and dishonorable behavior.

-Brendan

...Doesn't this agree with me? This would fall under the "final influence" clause. And if the purpose of GTA is to show kids that violence is horrible, then, truly, congratulations for GTA. I just think...I'll buy other anti-violence games for my children instead.

EDIT: just so we're clear...I don't have children. ...yet.

The last dates on this topic were in October. I guess it was supposed to die...oops.

If the purpose of GTA is to show kids that violence is horrible then I think that GTA is failing horribly. Admittedly, I've never played it myself.

-Brendan

sgeos wrote:

If the purpose of GTA is to show kids that violence is horrible then I think that GTA is failing horribly. Admittedly, I've never played it myself.

-Brendan

If the purpose of GTA was to show kids that violence is horrible than it would have been made by some non-profit special intrest group in the form of a 15-second TV public service announcement to be played during spots that the networks can't sell to their usual advertisers ;)
_________________
Useless Rants a.k.a. My futile attempts at rationalizing my unreasonable reluctance to call my site a 'blog'.

Omni wrote:

It is one thing to choose something bad. It is another to create something bad for someone else to choose.

But I thought you said we all had a choice. Now are you saying we don't have a choice in what we can create? Anyway, what is 'bad'. How do you define if something is bad???

Omni wrote:

Edmund Spenser, the author of the literary epic, the Faerie Queen (I believe it was an King Arthurian-based epic), wrote in his opening to Sir Phillip Sydney, .....

And Eminem said....

Omni wrote:

If I am a game developer, or an artist, or anything, I want to make something that I think is good, and will have a good effect on someone who plays, reads, or sees it.

And if I think that what you think is 'good' is actually 'bad' then you won't bother to make it?

Omni wrote:

Compare, for example, the recent Johnny Cash movie, to GTA......

Why does everyone harp on about GTA? We all know what this game is about. You should know before you buy it what you are going to get. So if you are not going to like it, don't play it. Why not compare 'Farenheit 9/11' to The Sims. [sarcasm]Hey - democracy in real life is bad. Let's do away with it.[/sarcasm]

Omni wrote:

At any rate, you must decide for yourself, first, what are the ideas that are expressed in a medium, and second, what is the theme?

I must? How about I just want to play a decent game for an hour or two.

Omni wrote:

But, if I must make something, I want it to have such a good theme.

OK great. Now all we need to do is decide upon the universal definition of a 'good theme'.
_________________
Modasi Games
www.modasi.com

gbadev.org forum archive

Game Design > Game designers, Don't be Drug Dealers!

#46439 - warsong - Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:25 pm

#46440 - natrium42 - Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:32 pm

#46442 - Kyoufu Kawa - Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:04 pm

#46460 - MiGs - Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:11 am

#46705 - sgeos - Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:42 am

#46727 - Lynx - Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:54 pm

#46794 - warsong - Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:37 pm

#46831 - Lynx - Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:56 am

#46864 - FourScience - Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:45 pm

#47143 - Miked0801 - Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:20 pm

#47171 - warsong - Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:02 am

#47199 - sgeos - Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:28 am

#47216 - tepples - Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:34 pm

#47280 - APL - Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:53 am

#47597 - warsong - Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:40 am

#47610 - sgeos - Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:18 am

#47653 - Abscissa - Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:26 pm

#47687 - Ferakk - Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:42 am

#47846 - warsong - Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:30 am

#47850 - poslundc - Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:39 am

#47856 - Miked0801 - Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:06 am

#48547 - Abscissa - Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:53 pm

#48551 - tepples - Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:23 pm

#48558 - Abscissa - Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:45 pm

#48573 - tepples - Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:53 pm

#48582 - Abscissa - Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:22 pm

#48585 - Wriggler - Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:42 pm

#48667 - Abscissa - Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:48 pm

#48683 - Abscissa - Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:31 pm

#48702 - Wriggler - Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:55 pm

#48721 - Abscissa - Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:48 pm

#48849 - warsong - Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:40 am

#48861 - MrD - Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:38 am

#48863 - Mighty Max - Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:03 am

#48883 - APL - Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:27 pm

#48898 - warsong - Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:03 pm

#48904 - Mighty Max - Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:11 pm

#48905 - APL - Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:11 pm

#48963 - Miked0801 - Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:40 pm

#48973 - tepples - Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:58 pm

#49021 - Abscissa - Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:47 pm

#49028 - Abscissa - Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:04 pm

#49054 - warsong - Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:32 am

#49056 - APL - Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:21 am

#49058 - APL - Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:22 am

#49063 - Abscissa - Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:27 am

#49069 - APL - Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 am

#49135 - warsong - Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:24 pm

#49136 - Abscissa - Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:36 pm

#49140 - Miked0801 - Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:04 pm

#49169 - APL - Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:48 am

#49183 - Abscissa - Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:11 am

#49357 - warsong - Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:38 am

#49436 - Abscissa - Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 pm

#50684 - warsong - Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:50 pm

#50729 - sgeos - Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:15 pm

#50999 - warsong - Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:43 am

#51365 - Abscissa - Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:19 pm

#51366 - Abscissa - Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:30 pm

#51367 - tepples - Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:52 pm

#51388 - APL - Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:36 am

#52054 - warsong - Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:44 pm

#52140 - APL - Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:24 am

#52320 - warsong - Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:39 pm

#52326 - Abscissa - Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:28 pm

#52346 - Miked0801 - Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:52 pm

#52367 - gauauu - Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:43 am

#52396 - APL - Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:58 pm

#52397 - tepples - Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:03 pm

#52416 - poslundc - Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:59 pm

#52417 - Abscissa - Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:09 pm

#52418 - Abscissa - Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:17 pm

#52551 - Miked0801 - Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:56 pm

#52659 - Abscissa - Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:31 pm

#52680 - Miked0801 - Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:15 pm

#53198 - Abscissa - Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:02 pm

#53200 - GBAJAY - Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:19 pm

#53254 - tepples - Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:24 am