Which Is Worse?
#46
Posted 31 October 2005 - 08:12 PM
All I can say is that in my opinion it's far better to allow sex (which is legal at 16 in the UK) in games than violence (which is obviously illegal at any age above ten).
That's just my opinion though. I don't think that an increase in sex in games will bring about a massive influx of STDs but then again I don't think that taking violence away from games will cut crime figures. It'd be nice, but it's not likely.
Violence in games is basically used as a scapegoat by pretty much any American parent who couldn't manage to keep their mentally challenged child away from their guns. Possibly actually making parents more responsible in a country where weapons are easy to come by is a higher priority than banning games.
Twelve year old kids who play GTA and then go on a killing rampage with their father's pistol are obviously not stable in the first place. I've been playing games for over ten years now and I have never taken my dad's cricket bat out of the house and smacked a bystander in the face with it. Nor, after playing games containing sex, have I then gone out on a sexual rampage to, I dunno, Ikon and Diva (rest in peace) and picked up some girls.
People can't really use games which are purely fictional as a reason for violence when you see far worse every day on the television. If the news yesterday was turned into a game, with the amount of blood around it would be an 18+ game. That's just the way it is though.
#47
Posted 31 October 2005 - 08:30 PM
I'm only saying that games can be potentially harmful. Obviously you can't shield your children from everything, but in those few areas in which you might be able to, shouldn't you at least try to protect them? And really, saying that a child who takes a game too seriously must have been crazy to begin with won't do. Because if he hadn't played that particular computer game he might not have gone on a killing spree with grandpa's gun. Then again, he might have done it anyway, of course. But are you going to issue labels "Warning! This game is only for the emotionally stable. If that doesn't apply to you and you decide to play it anyway - tough luck."? You can't assume that everybody has common sense and is emotionally stable, just because in an ideal world everybody would be.
#48
Posted 31 October 2005 - 08:57 PM

http://www.last.fm/user/DeathDude/Upcoming Concerts will be attending, 5/10/08: Dream Theater, 5/12/08: Gigantour, 5/16/08: Nightwish, 5/27/08: Rush, 6/5/08 and 6/6/08: Iron Maiden, 7/27/08: Judas Priest,
#49
Posted 31 October 2005 - 09:36 PM
Im too busy playing games to follow any lifestyle emssages they give out..

Meep?
#50
Posted 31 October 2005 - 09:46 PM
A. J. Raffles, on Oct 31 2005, 08:30 PM, said:
I'm only saying that games can be potentially harmful. Obviously you can't shield your children from everything, but in those few areas in which you might be able to, shouldn't you at least try to protect them? And really, saying that a child who takes a game too seriously must have been crazy to begin with won't do. Because if he hadn't played that particular computer game he might not have gone on a killing spree with grandpa's gun. Then again, he might have done it anyway, of course. But are you going to issue labels "Warning! This game is only for the emotionally stable. If that doesn't apply to you and you decide to play it anyway - tough luck."? You can't assume that everybody has common sense and is emotionally stable, just because in an ideal world everybody would be.
Movies
Novels
Guns
Kitchen Knives
Shards of Glass
Automobiles
Gasoline
Money
The Internet
Martial Arts
Religion
...
uh the list goes on

For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2
#52
Posted 31 October 2005 - 09:54 PM
But if im going to play a game like Resident Evil... then id surly be pissed if i defeated the Zombies by jumping on thier head too.
i just think violence should be existant when it fits to the game.
what IS sad is the fact that yes... many developers try to sell thier games by making them as violent as possible.... but i dont think that way because im scared that some kid is going to flip... i feel that way because it doesnt have anything to do with the art of game design

For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2
#53
Posted 31 October 2005 - 09:58 PM
Brilliant, really.
Raffles is right, it's not inevitable, and nor is it necessary to include violence or sex to make a good game.
Personally, I don't think that the damage is outright except in the case of already unstable children... Few children are going to go out and grab a weapon and start killing people after playing a game. What's so damaging about graphic violence and sex in video games (or any entertainment media) is that it warps perspective in developing children to accept these things as normal, and even worse, as entertainment.
I mean, how many of you have watched shows like Jack*** and laughed at it? If you think about it, there's really nothing funny about the show. What people are laughing at is the fact that other people are getting hurt. It's self-inflicted violence, but it's still violence.
And for that matter, how many men have treated their girlfriends like dirt sexually because of the perspective on sex they've developed from being exposed to things such as porn? And don't say none, because it happens, I know this for a fact, and it's not that they're bad guys, or that they mean to be jerks, but that they expect their significant others to behave a certain way, when it reality, it just doesn't happen that way.
doodoodoo!!!
#54
Posted 31 October 2005 - 10:13 PM
I don't see it as inevitable for games, the problem that lies right now is those sorts of qualities sell games. It's a drawing factor for gamers, that's why games like GTA sell or even a game like DOA Extreme Beach Volleyball sells. Then we end up with like half a dozen clones of these types of games and bam, all for the money, if it's contreversial in some way, it sells. Just look at the ruckus Jack Thompson has caused over San Andreas, ya think it raised awareness? Well it did, but it also no doubt helped gamers or other people who weren't planning on buying the game, take a closer look, helping rockstar indirectly.

http://www.last.fm/user/DeathDude/Upcoming Concerts will be attending, 5/10/08: Dream Theater, 5/12/08: Gigantour, 5/16/08: Nightwish, 5/27/08: Rush, 6/5/08 and 6/6/08: Iron Maiden, 7/27/08: Judas Priest,
#55
Posted 01 November 2005 - 03:42 PM
#56
Posted 01 November 2005 - 04:09 PM
Stebbi, on Nov 1 2005, 06:42 PM, said:
#57
Posted 01 November 2005 - 04:19 PM

DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)
#58
Posted 01 November 2005 - 04:24 PM

http://www.last.fm/user/DeathDude/Upcoming Concerts will be attending, 5/10/08: Dream Theater, 5/12/08: Gigantour, 5/16/08: Nightwish, 5/27/08: Rush, 6/5/08 and 6/6/08: Iron Maiden, 7/27/08: Judas Priest,
#59
Posted 01 November 2005 - 05:47 PM
If games are ever to evolve then they need to include more of a story and probably more relationships. It's just a shame that the current way that the computer games industry tries to show these things is by including graphic violence (sex is a lot more uncommon in games, unless you actually go looking for games with it in).
It'd be nice to have great games with stories that were complex etc. but for the time being games are a business investment and not something that people make for fun.
Look at the death of Introversion for example. That's a company that'll go bust soon as its games were very different from the standard market. As their leader said, it saddens him that people will "pay forty pounds for licenced turd".
That's the way it'll be for a while though, I imagine.
#60
Posted 01 November 2005 - 05:48 PM
Stebbi, on Nov 1 2005, 03:42 PM, said:




This topic is locked










