Light em up and watch em burn! [Archive]

rajpoot

12-05-2011, 16:53

While the whole premise of upholding human rights in video games (or limiting violence in video games) does sound a bit silly, but it was actually a topic me an a pal were discussing over coffee today.
Both of us have been playing Skyrim, and discussing a certain quest. He said (and I agreed) that games such as this that allow players to make moral decisions (or to put it better, immoral decisions) aren't a serious issue by themselves, but what do you do if you get a chance to kill an innocent civilian in a game?
Many players will probably turn away and follow the moral path. Many will probably go on a killing rampage ala GTA games, just for fun and causing mayhem. But wouldn't there also be some people who'll deliberately pick the sadistic choices? Aren't the games catering to this last class of people too by allowing them to indulge in something which is socially immoral?
I mean as long as someone does it solely for roleplay purposes it does not matter (I mean it would be a little sick....who'd want to roleplay as a terrorist?)....but what if someone does it because they actually 'want' to do it?

Truth is even now as I think about it, I feel that it's really a silly little thing of no real consequence. :dizzy2:

But then the thought of some twelve year old out there, sitting in his room, running around killing NPCs in Skyrim just because he can, is slightly disturbing.

Vuk

12-05-2011, 16:59

But then the thought of some twelve year old out there, sitting in his room, running around killing NPCs in Skyrim just because he can, is slightly disturbing.

Why? When I was a kid I ran around knocking people out in Thief and then throwing their unconscious bodies into water or fires. :P Look how sane I turned out! (Ok, maybe that was not the best example. :P)
Seriously though, one of the funnest things about games like Oblivion is being able to run around wiping out a whole city of whining civies and block-headed guards. :P How can that not appeal to you?

rory_20_uk

12-05-2011, 17:07

12 year olds are generally not allowed to pay these games, in the same way 12 year olds are not allowed to drink, smoke, have sex own guns.

Things should not be banned merely as those who should not have them will get hold of them.

~:smoking:

Ronin

12-05-2011, 17:08

But then the thought of some twelve year old out there, sitting in his room, running around killing NPCs in Skyrim just because he can, is slightly disturbing.

Skyrim is a 18+ game.

rajpoot

12-05-2011, 17:29

All right I think you guys are missing the point I was trying to make....although it was not so much as a point as a...musing.
I'm not against violent games, or sex in games, or sadism in games or anything of that sort. Games are a medium like any other medium...with one difference that they are interactive to some degree.

All I'm saying is, to put it as simply as possible, that games sometimes allow people to engage in activities that can be considered immoral to varying degrees, depending on who is doing the 'considering'. Most people would find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapelay) sort of game abhorrent. Many would also find a game which allows players to roleplay as terrorists placing bombs/killing people disgusting. Some people would even find sex in games distasteful.
All this not because the person playing the game is (in reality) like any of the characters he's playing as, but because the very fact that the person was interested in experiencing from that point of view.....but then it's all relative.

Fragony

12-05-2011, 17:30

Why? When I was a kid I ran around knocking people out in Thief and then throwing their unconscious bodies into water or fires. :P Look how sane I turned out! (Ok, maybe that was not the best example. :P)
Seriously though, one of the funnest things about games like Oblivion is being able to run around wiping out a whole city of whining civies and block-headed guards. :P How can that not appeal to you?

Those are fantasy-titles, I don't think this is all that silly. Do we really want it to be possible to shoot down surrending enemies in a game that wants to be realistic. It would be realistic of course but still. I say yes it should be possible as it clearly says 18+ but I can understand the Red Cross a bit

PanzerJaeger

12-05-2011, 17:32

The title expresses my opinion on this crap. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114515-Red-Cross-Investigating-Virtual-War-Crimes)

I concur. I wish I could get paid to ponder such nonsense. I may send in (http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.86f46a12f382290517a8f210b80f78a0/?vgnextoid=fb6b2b0d3232b110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD) my resume...

drone

12-05-2011, 17:38

All the pixels in my POW camp call me the Doctor of Death. It's no coincidence that my favorite MTW VnV is Butcher. :yes:

Nowake

12-05-2011, 17:55

rory_20_uk

12-05-2011, 18:40

Fragony

12-05-2011, 18:50

Rules of warfare are set by lawyers a long way away from the front line. Every side in every war has committed war crimes. Summary execution of anyone using a flamer has been undertaken since they were first used.

If they make it so one can follow all the rules often one should get heavy in-game penalties for doing so - stealth mission plus 3 POWs? Good luck with that.

~:smoking:

I don't know where to draw the line but a game is a game, and I can see how it can be tasteless when insisting to be anything else

Ronin

12-05-2011, 19:31

Rules of warfare are set by lawyers a long way away from the front line. Every side in every war has committed war crimes.

not really...like we all know, only the losing side is guilty of war crimes......right?

Husar

12-05-2011, 19:47

Nowake

12-05-2011, 20:07

Personally, I find their video presentation (http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/audiovisuals/video/31-int-conf-ihl-video-games-side-event-video-2011.htm) was a cute effort.
I don't think they are up to curtailing anyone's enjoyment. If you need gore, you can always go back to Doom 1 and play it for 12 hours straight with the other freaks. In games depicting historical events, having at least the option to treat a wounded enemy according to the Geneva conventions would be a solid addition.
Rules of warfare are set by lawyers a long way away from the front line. Every side in every war has committed war crimes. Summary execution of anyone using a flamer has been undertaken since they were first used.
Sure. The possibility should be given to you. And the legal consequences and illegal cover-ups should be simulated in game if you prove yourself to be acting like a war criminal. It's simply historically sound up to a point. If the game is too simple for that and you're merely scoring points for killing Nazis, perhaps you should at least not be awarded extra points for torching a wounded NPC "who" surrendered and is simulating a cry for help (or for his mother, whatever really).

We have so many on this board and even in this thread who are very concerned with promiscuity and sexual morality, and yet they come out in favour of the vicarious "pleasure" of simulating the burning of a human being to death. Bit too much cognitive dissonance for me.

Vuk

12-05-2011, 20:28

I think it's a great idea, if just for the first bunch of immature posts in this thread.

I also don't get why people have to throw a tantrum because someone wants to have a serious discussion about video games.
Noone said they will actually go ahead and try to ban things, so far they want to discuss and think about violence in video games.

The more video gamers talk about killing and mutilating red cross members over this, the more I'm convinced that the discussion is necessary.

For many years videogamers have felt like outcasts and been seen as nerds, now that we get public attention, for the good or the bad, the first course of action seems to be to prove to the general public that we love our "perversions" and really are a bunch of freaks...?!?

I for one could certainly do without attention-grabbing missions and mutilations in video games, doesn't mean I think they should be banned but at some point it may be valid to ask whether the constant tearing down of moral borders is actually a good thing.

And just because the world is a bad place, there's no reason to celebrate that.

Really? I am suddenly perverted or violent because I like chasing down and killing civies in a video game? Do you really think that makes me any more likely to go kill someone in real life? I love to hack and burn random bums in DX, but the sight of human blood in real life makes me nauseous. I have taken punches to the face to avoid having to fight someone I hated because I was afraid I would hurt them (mostly of the legal consequences of that). Where is the connection exactly between video game violence and violence? I will tell you, there is none. You will have all kinds of people who like to do crazy things in video games, and 90% of them are just normal people. The ones that are really violent people are already violent people to begin with, and not a product of video games.
I'll tell you what, buy a copy of Thief II if you do not have one, and then download the fan mission Mr. Oh Dear and you will have an idea of the types of stuff I played when I was young. (and extreme example) :P My little sisters played and loved that fan mission, and they are probably the most peaceful, non-violent people I have ever met (yet they like playing a game where a servant boy is brutally tortured over and over again).
Of course I am giving you extreme examples, that is certainly not the type of thing I seek out or play the most, but I still find it funny and enjoyable.
You see, what you don't get Hussar is that people can realize that it is only a make believe world and have fun with it. They can have fun doing things they would never find fun or want to do in real life. When I play shooters I some times jump around seeing how many ways I can die gruesome deaths...just for fun. Does that mean I would find jumping in front of a semi fun irl? You don't seem to get the distinction between reality and video game (or at least you believe other gamers incapable of making the distinction).

Husar

12-05-2011, 21:58

You don't seem to get the distinction between reality and video game (or at least you believe other gamers incapable of making the distinction).

Uhm, that assumption is completely pulled out of your nose and has nothing to do with my post or what I said.

I said people shouldn't throw a tantrum because other people are having a serious discussions or concerns about video games.

Neither did I say perversion, I said "perversions", I play (violent) video games myself, you know, the question is just why it gets so much to you that the red cross may decide to disencourage video game developers from including torture scenes in their games? Are torture scenes that important to you or are you just getting upset for no reason at all?

I don't really care about the red cross discussing this because video games are fun for me even if they don't revolve about mowing down civilians at an airport, dismembering people with landmines or having my guy look tough and patriotic while he tortures someone. The reaction to this discussion makes it look like the really gory atrocities are the only thing in video games you people care about, that's why it can easily look "perverted" to outsiders. Hardly anyone believes that playing video games turns lovely people into killers anymore, the discussion has mostly moved beyond that and it's absolutely not what I said, your outrage and excuses are completely superfluous. ~;)

Montmorency

12-05-2011, 21:59

Why not? If it acts as more than a gimmick, bring it on. RTT games, at least, would be more interesting if civilians were simulated. Think of the local consequences civilian activity might have for who wins a particular firefight, or whether a squad successfully sneaks into a structure, etc.

a completely inoffensive name

12-05-2011, 22:07

This kills the game.

Vuk

12-05-2011, 22:14

Uhm, that assumption is completely pulled out of your nose and has nothing to do with my post or what I said.

I said people shouldn't throw a tantrum because other people are having a serious discussions or concerns about video games.

Neither did I say perversion, I said "perversions", I play (violent) video games myself, you know, the question is just why it gets so much to you that the red cross may decide to disencourage video game developers from including torture scenes in their games? Are torture scenes that important to you or are you just getting upset for no reason at all?

I don't really care about the red cross discussing this because video games are fun for me even if they don't revolve about mowing down civilians at an airport, dismembering people with landmines or having my guy look tough and patriotic while he tortures someone. The reaction to this discussion makes it look like the really gory atrocities are the only thing in video games you people care about, that's why it can easily look "perverted" to outsiders. Hardly anyone believes that playing video games turns lovely people into killers anymore, the discussion has mostly moved beyond that and it's absolutely not what I said, your outrage and excuses are completely superfluous. ~;)

They are discussing whether or not video games should be 'held to IHL'. That means what exactly? You could not have a game where it is possible to kill a civy? So much for giving the player freedom. You know what? If you have a civy and soldiers in the same map, they will shoot at them even if the game tries to stop them. The exact same things will go through their mind. The last thing we need is the stupid Red Cross trying to get the government that is way to big to start sticking their noses further into the video game industry and controlling what we can and cannot do. I am sorry, but I do not give a pox about their intentions; I am firmly against the government further controlling the forms of media and entertainment available to me.

Husar

12-05-2011, 22:30

They are discussing whether or not video games should be 'held to IHL'. That means what exactly? You could not have a game where it is possible to kill a civy? So much for giving the player freedom. You know what? If you have a civy and soldiers in the same map, they will shoot at them even if the game tries to stop them. The exact same things will go through their mind. The last thing we need is the stupid Red Cross trying to get the government that is way to big to start sticking their noses further into the video game industry and controlling what we can and cannot do. I am sorry, but I do not give a pox about their intentions; I am firmly against the government further controlling the forms of media and entertainment available to me.

Except the red cross isn't government and the red cross hasn't come to a conclusion yet, they just invite people to a discussion on the topic. If the gamer-side in the discussion starts to flame them and call for them to be burned and shot, it's hardly going to help anyone.

If you look at the trailer they made they may just be against awarding people for cruelties, as in you can shoot civies but you get a lower score if you do so. Some games already have or had similar restrictions.
I'm also missing the big outcry about not being able to kill children in Skyrim and other games, but when the red cross invites people to a discussion of the topic, people rage and complain?

And since when is there a problem with people lobbying the government? The RIAA and others do so quite successfully as well last I heard, if the customers want their gorefests then surely EA and others could lobby right back.

Not to mention that if you're against restrictions on your media usage, you might want to look in the direction of companies first.

Veho Nex

12-05-2011, 23:13

Vuk

12-06-2011, 01:24

Except the red cross isn't government and the red cross hasn't come to a conclusion yet, they just invite people to a discussion on the topic. If the gamer-side in the discussion starts to flame them and call for them to be burned and shot, it's hardly going to help anyone.

If you look at the trailer they made they may just be against awarding people for cruelties, as in you can shoot civies but you get a lower score if you do so. Some games already have or had similar restrictions.
I'm also missing the big outcry about not being able to kill children in Skyrim and other games, but when the red cross invites people to a discussion of the topic, people rage and complain?

And since when is there a problem with people lobbying the government? The RIAA and others do so quite successfully as well last I heard, if the customers want their gorefests then surely EA and others could lobby right back.

Not to mention that if you're against restrictions on your media usage, you might want to look in the direction of companies first.

Just what we need, the gaming industry soaking Washington with money (which means the price of games will go up)! Perfect!

CrossLOPER

12-06-2011, 02:26

If you need gore, you can always go back to Doom 1 and play it for 12 hours straight with the other freaks.
Doom was boss, but I don't think I ever went over eight hours.

The more video gamers talk about killing and mutilating red cross members over this, the more I'm convinced that the discussion is necessary.

For many years videogamers have felt like outcasts and been seen as nerds, now that we get public attention, for the good or the bad, the first course of action seems to be to prove to the general public that we love our "perversions" and really are a bunch of freaks...?!?
IT. IS. FANTASY.

Gamers are tired of idiots crapping on a hobby because they seem to completely fail to grasp this simple fact.

a completely inoffensive name

12-06-2011, 06:54

You know who also played doom? The Columbine kids.

Checkmate. Red Cross 1, gamerz 0.

Fragony

12-06-2011, 07:54

IT. IS. FANTASY.

Gamers are tired of idiots crapping on a hobby because they seem to completely fail to grasp this simple fact.

It's fantasy but a game like Call of Duty is meant to be realistic. And as Hussie they are only interested in discussion, what's wrong with that.

Sarmatian

12-06-2011, 09:03

A few years back, I talked with a psychologist who had just finished his graduation thesis on the influence of violent video games on kids and teenagers and his conclusion was that it had a big effect, much bigger effect than movies because of the interactive nature of video games. In movies, you're just a passive observer and in games, you're actually pulling the trigger. Also, the more realistic it gets in games, the bigger the influence is...

Now, I'm also in the camp of "this is bull" but I don't think it's so easy to dismiss bad influence of video games.

Nowake

12-06-2011, 10:20

First and foremost, The Red Cross is placing the accent on games depicting historical events. It was asserted several times. Is it so hard to understand why?

Hypothesis. You are playing an FPS based on the American Civil War. In this particular level, African slaves are fleeing in the fields. The Caucasian friends you are playing the game with are riding them down, throwing tar on them and setting them on fire, just for laughs. Would it make it ok for you to do it if you had a black friend doing it too?

Lets take one more baby step.

Second hypothesis. You are playing an FPS based on the ’48 Arab uprising in Palestine. In this level, you are entering the Israeli controlled zones in Jerusalem. Your German and Arab friends are shooting Jews indiscriminately and are throwing grenades in houses filled with civilians. Would it make it better if your friends were all American?

Do you understand why these games don’t fly? Eventhough most gamers do, at least initially, clearly perceive those as NPCs, yet the mere possibility of crossing that mental line makes developers reluctant in these cases. Why in these cases and in none of the rest? The situations are identical, technically.

Now, the Red Cross does not wish to ban warfare games based on historical events, but they think you should at least be allowed to treat the NPCs depicting German, British, Japanese, American, Russian, French etc. human beings according to the Geneva Conventions, and that you should not be actively encouraged by the game to massacre civilians – even in reality, there were consequences if you weren’t able to cover it up after all.
And that is unreasonable?

You know who also played doom? The Columbine kids.
Checkmate. Red Cross 1, gamerz 0.
ACIN!! /shakes fist in anger :smiley2:
I was going to draw at least one more person in with that ancient Doom reference before making that point...
I know it's shallow, but let them do damage control with "but it's not the blood-n-guts game that directed their instincts, their personalities drove them to enjoy the game" arguments, which, despite being true for the most part, also condemn the game by default. Saves you the effort of replying.

Fragony

12-06-2011, 10:45

I don't think it's so easy to dismiss bad influence of video games.

Indeed, not as a cause or a trigger but it wouldn't be that hard to imagine that that killerviking played that MW2 airport massacre a lot. I wonder if that scene would have made it after what happened in Norway.

For those who never saw it youtube 'No Russian'. It's pretty damn sick

Papewaio

12-06-2011, 10:49

Fragony

12-06-2011, 10:54

Simply make it an anti-achievement and then your own team can a) hit you with friendly fire if not enabled, b) get a bonus for bringing you to justice etc etc... sure you have the freedom to do whatever you want, just make it come with consequences and it will make the games more realistic and better overall.

Why would it need to be realistic, games shouldn't take itself so serious imho. Modern Warfare 2 is a simple shooting galerie, do you really need to be able to finish of a wounded person that is trying to crawl away from you. It's rather bad taste imho as some people will absolutely enjoy it.

Husar

12-06-2011, 12:32

IT. IS. FANTASY.

Gamers are tired of idiots crapping on a hobby because they seem to completely fail to grasp this simple fact.

Is the choice of words in your post also fantasy? If you want people to take gamers seriously instead of treating them as kids, maybe it's time to stop swearing at everyone like a little kid when they want to talk about your hobby...

Skateboarding was also seen as a horrible hobby for children back when it was new, by now it's more or less accepted and noone really wants to ban it anymore. I doubt that was achieved by calling people idiots and "getting tired" though. You're just proving that video games do indeed make you very aggressive. ~;)

Other than that, good post! I agree with the Red Cross here. Nobody is arguing against video games in general this time, but I think gamers are, as a whole, very tired of anti-video game rhetoric. It seems like every time the last moral crises blows over, a new one rears its head.

Maybe that's because of the way many gamers behave, especially when someone shows just a little hint of criticising their hobby.

Go up to someone who likes fishing, tell them: "I have concerns about the way you treat your fish, do you kill them quickly enough?", what would be the more proper and what would be the more likely reply?

a) "Oh yes, of course, just wait a bit and I'll show you how I do it."

b) "WHAT? Are you insane!?! GO AWAY AND DIE IN A FIRE!!!!"

and which reply would more likely convince you that fishing isn't a hobby that makes people more aggressive? ~;)

Nowake

12-06-2011, 13:10

you are not this good! If you have powers of prescience, I want a cut!
Oi! Are you implying that I don’t... that I can’t...? Think of a number, come on, think of a number right now!! :stare:

Joke aside, I did not think to guess anyone’s next argument, just thought it to be the correct argument so I believed my example must lead to it two-three posts down the line. You are making the same point, albeit indirectly, in the second paragraph of your post. And I agree, it is the correct fact to point out, playing the game did not generate their blood thirst, their blood thirst drew them to the game. Yet by asserting that you (a general you, not you personally in this case) actually concede the point that your gory game presents a deep appeal to murderers, and that won’t do your side any favours.

EDIT: Oh, I actually looked up the clip mentioned by Frag earlier. You want to watch it from 2:25 onwards. It's not as graphic as I thought it would be, yet it is a case in point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmt9Xk-PIGE

Fragony

12-06-2011, 13:22

That's the scene but not the game, it's played from a first person perspective like any other shooter, gun in hand you get it. You have no control over walking, but can shoot. Don't think I can link it because of rules

HopAlongBunny

12-06-2011, 15:32

The Red Cross opens an interesting debate. As people who care very much about the topic I am not surprised they would raise it as a matter for discussion.

More interesting is the game possibilities it raises.

You are an InterPol agent searching the world for gamers violating the Geneva Convention; violaters must be apprehended and brought to the International Court of Justice for prosecution!; residents of non-signatory nations must be lured to areas of jurisdiction.

Could be a good detective/spy/puzzle game.

DLC? "Truth Tools" allowing people to say what they really mean
"Extraordinary Rendition" helping others to see places they never dreamed of.

PanzerJaeger

12-07-2011, 06:33

First and foremost, The Red Cross is placing the accent on games depicting historical events. It was asserted several times. Is it so hard to understand why?

Hypothesis. You are playing an FPS based on the American Civil War. In this particular level, African slaves are fleeing in the fields. The Caucasian friends you are playing the game with are riding them down, throwing tar on them and setting them on fire, just for laughs. Would it make it ok for you to do it if you had a black friend doing it too?

Lets take one more baby step.

Second hypothesis. You are playing an FPS based on the ’48 Arab uprising in Palestine. In this level, you are entering the Israeli controlled zones in Jerusalem. Your German and Arab friends are shooting Jews indiscriminately and are throwing grenades in houses filled with civilians. Would it make it better if your friends were all American?

Do you understand why these games don’t fly? Eventhough most gamers do, at least initially, clearly perceive those as NPCs, yet the mere possibility of crossing that mental line makes developers reluctant in these cases. Why in these cases and in none of the rest? The situations are identical, technically.

Those games would not fly because they sound simply awful.

Now, the Red Cross does not wish to ban warfare games based on historical events, but they think you should at least be allowed to treat the NPCs depicting German, British, Japanese, American, Russian, French etc. human beings according to the Geneva Conventions, and that you should not be actively encouraged by the game to massacre civilians – even in reality, there were consequences if you weren’t able to cover it up after all.
And that is unreasonable?

It is completely unreasonable for any entity besides the developer to say what should and should not be in video games. What this working group translates into is an early movement toward more arbitrary restrictions on video game content. If it gets off the ground with an agreed upon agenda, they will soon be courting politicians and the media. Do we really need human rights groups and the nanny state involved in what can and cannot be portrayed in video games? It is called artistic freedom, and it should be more important than dubious ties to mass shootings or whatever the current call to action happens to be. On issues like this, it is important to call BS before legislation materializes.

Go ahead and make your slave chase game. Let the market decide whether it crosses the line, not some bureaucrat who has never heard of a 'first person shooter'.

Nowake

12-07-2011, 07:42

Lions and Wildebeast are both drawn to pools of water.
And who is drawn to pools of blood?

Those games would not fly because they sound simply awful.
Go ahead and make your slave chase game. Let the market decide whether it crosses the line.
Right, why have I not written the actual gameplay briefs instead of merely outlining a few of the “freedoms” a “realistic” game might give you during your actual missions.
It appears simulating the massacre of slaves and Jews should be legal. Same as making an FPS where, as part of the game’s freedom of choice, you can round up Arab families, strap explosives to their bodies and press the button. While we’re at it, lets also release a couple of games where the player is allowed to torture and rape five year old children between one’s marksmanship missions. No one thinks they will become the favourite past-time of suburban families, but of a few of their troubled children, perhaps; of shady rednecks and backward southerners, of misfits from across the world.

No, I’m sorry, that is very wrong, the “invisible hand” of the market does not simply decide the market share, it is the tool to gauge whether your fantasy mind-spawn crossed the line. The market is, after all, the moral arbiter of our civilization and all this must be legal.

:shrug:

PanzerJaeger

12-07-2011, 08:03

Right, why have I not written the actual gameplay briefs instead of merely outlining a few of the “freedoms” a “realistic” game might give you during your actual missions.
It appears simulating the massacre of slaves and Jews should be legal. Same as making an FPS where, as part of the game’s freedom of choice, you can round up Arab families, strap explosives to their bodies and press the button. While we’re at it, lets also release a couple of games where the player is allowed to torture and rape five year old children between one’s marksmanship missions. No one thinks they will become the favourite past-time of suburban families, but of a few of their troubled children, perhaps; of shady rednecks and backward southerners, of misfits from across the world.

No, I’m sorry, that is very wrong, the “invisible hand” of the market does not simply decide the market share, it is the tool to gauge whether your fantasy mind-spawn crossed the line. The market is, after all, the moral arbiter of our civilization and all this must be legal.

:shrug:

Sure, make them all. As personally objectionable as I would find a game about raping children, I would much rather live in a society where developers, and all artists, have the freedom of expression to create such content than one where the creeping fingers of such modern day prohibitionists find their way into even more aspects of our lives.

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 08:08

It's very simple. If you try to prohibit game developers from allowing your character to rape women, then you might as well roll out the red carpet for Stalin.

Nowake

12-07-2011, 08:11

Anyone looking for meat, of course.
And thus we agree: the ones hoping to find or transform someone into a corpse.

As personally objectionable as I would find a game about raping children, I would much rather live in a society where developers, and all artists [who want to create games simulating the burning of slaves, blowing up Jewish or Arab families and torturing children - my note] have the freedom of expression to create such content than one where the creeping fingers
It is quite an insight to realise you understand the creators of such content to be antagonistic to creepiness. And their access not to be an excess of freedom.

A pity to have stepped on anyone’s toes though, it was not my intention.

PanzerJaeger

12-07-2011, 08:23

It's very simple. If you try to prohibit game developers from allowing your character to rape women, then you might as well roll out the red carpet for Stalin.

Reductio ad absurdum is weak form, sir.

Nowake

12-07-2011, 08:23

I believe these analogies are obscuring the issue rather than revealing it at this point.
Else, if I follow your analogy, I would label gory games as blood. And you can blame blood for giving the predator a taste for the corpse he is looking for; blood does not assuage hunger, it stimulates your taste buds.

EDIT:

the creeping fingers of such modern day prohibitionists
Reductio ad absurdum.

PanzerJaeger

12-07-2011, 08:36

EDIT:

Reductio ad absurdum.

Not at all. The existence of this working group shows that such people are not an absurd consequence of an cerebral discussion, but a very real force for change taking concrete action. Such groups are often the genesis for legislation that affects larger society. A Stalinist regime is a more distant possibility, to say the least.

Nowake

12-07-2011, 08:44

PJ, you were equating groups who wanted to ban alcohol with persons who want to stop you from simulating the rape of children.
You were also labelling persons who want to stop you from simulating the rape of children creepy.
Pardon me for thinking it absurd.

GC, I’m sorry, I did not wish to make a stand against analogies. I do think them very useful too. I believed them to be obscuring the issue in this particular case, because we wrapped ourselves in them and were not agreeing on what stood for what anymore, that was all.

Vuk

12-07-2011, 16:07

And who is drawn to pools of blood?

Right, why have I not written the actual gameplay briefs instead of merely outlining a few of the “freedoms” a “realistic” game might give you during your actual missions.
It appears simulating the massacre of slaves and Jews should be legal. Same as making an FPS where, as part of the game’s freedom of choice, you can round up Arab families, strap explosives to their bodies and press the button. While we’re at it, lets also release a couple of games where the player is allowed to torture and rape five year old children between one’s marksmanship missions. No one thinks they will become the favourite past-time of suburban families, but of a few of their troubled children, perhaps; of shady rednecks and backward southerners, of misfits from across the world.

No, I’m sorry, that is very wrong, the “invisible hand” of the market does not simply decide the market share, it is the tool to gauge whether your fantasy mind-spawn crossed the line. The market is, after all, the moral arbiter of our civilization and all this must be legal.

:shrug:

There is already a game about rape, but you do not see it on the shelves of you local Walmart. The "invisible hand" of the market is not allowing such a game to be main stream. Retailers know that they would alienate majority of their business to appeal to a few, sick #*%$(s. Who is to decide what is right and wrong if NOT the consumer? Pretty soon an administration could say that any game that represented them in a bad way was immoral and spread misinformation.
I love your attack on Southerners BTW. You see Nowake, anyone who games like that appeal to would like them because they are already sick. It is not like a normal person would buy such a game unknowingly, play it, and then turn into a depraved scum bag.
Look at GTA. I hate that game and always have. I have always argued that it is a bad influence on games, that people should not let their kids play it, and that the developers should be more responsible than to put something like that on the market. (and still believe all those things) Never once though did I argue that there should be laws against it. When you start making laws to restrict what can and cannot be in video games, it won't be long before people abuse that to everyone's loss. Let concerned people, retailers, and consumers regulate what is sold - not the government. When you have a treaty applied to a game, that means the government regulates what goes into your game. That would be the worst thing possible for gaming and gamers.

Andres

12-07-2011, 16:32

Allthough I agree that a game that would allow you to abuse children in it (who would buy that? I'd say only those who are already crazy. Besides, who knows, perhaps such a game might be an escape for those having that kind of thoughts and might prevent them from doing in in reality; I don't know, I'm not a shrink), would be very disgusting, I'm, for one, am more afraid of the idea of censorship than the idea that someobody created a distasteful game and people are playing it.

I think those getting inspiration from horror movies, horror books or games to commit attrocities were already insane before they watched the movie/read the book/played the game anyway.

And even then, if it can be proven that a game might influence a deranged mind or be the trigger that makes the nutjob go from fantasy to reality, I would find that one, single and exceptional case a pretty poor excuse to install a censorship commission for games.

Furunculus

12-07-2011, 17:26

Boot Deus Ex up and start burning 8 year old children and post a vid of it on their Youtube channel. lol

lol, my brother decided to murder all the hookers in the shanghai section of the game, and then spent forty minutes hauling their bodies to the top of the apartment block into a big heap! :D

Simply make it an anti-achievement and then your own team can a) hit you with friendly fire if not enabled, b) get a bonus for bringing you to justice etc etc... sure you have the freedom to do whatever you want, just make it come with consequences and it will make the games more realistic and better overall.

lol, simply assign dick-points to the steam achievement list:

"Furunculus gained the Red Cross - torture of a civilian achievement!"

and then let my friends ostracise me for my non-acceptable 'public' behaviour........... :D

Fragony

12-07-2011, 18:33

I don't understand why so many of you are so upset about this, are you 'gamers', feel attacked as a collective somehow.

CrossLOPER

12-07-2011, 19:03

Is the choice of words in your post also fantasy?
No, I think they exist in the material realm unless this is all just a giant acid trip.
If you want people to take gamers seriously instead of treating them as kids, maybe it's time to stop swearing at everyone like a little kid when they want to talk about your hobby...
Why must every profoundly idiotic idea be countered with a well thought out argument? Why must I put in more effort in the conversation than the opposite side?

Skateboarding was also seen as a horrible hobby for children back when it was new, by now it's more or less accepted and noone really wants to ban it anymore. I doubt that was achieved by calling people idiots and "getting tired" though. You're just proving that video games do indeed make you very aggressive.
It is a mild example of frustration at those who have nowhere to force their morality, so they come to the logical conclusion that they should jump on the "games are the Great Satan" bandwagon. Of course they know nothing of games and this leads to them talking about things like how many points you get for stabbing someone in the face when no well-adjusted individual pays attentions to such things too much.

Ironside

12-07-2011, 19:40

While not entirely on topic it's certainly linked to it. I do feel that there's some need to adress the point that actions are still evil even if they're funny, your side is doing them, you symphatize with the cause or the character doing it or you're doing it yourself (usually gamewise). Excusing it by some of those reasons are a bit too common imo, and would probably help at the point the Red Cross is trying to make there. It doesn't feel like something that in any form need to show up all the time, but still possibly more than it is now.

Vuk

12-07-2011, 20:58

I don't understand why so many of you are so upset about this, are you 'gamers', feel attacked as a collective somehow.

You are wrong Frags, it has nothing to do with feeling attacked. I am upset about it because someone is proposing legislating game content. As a gamer, that would have consequences for me that I would dearly like to avoid.

Ja'chyra

12-08-2011, 00:24

12 year olds are generally not allowed to pay these games, in the same way 12 year olds are not allowed to drink, smoke, have sex with their own guns.

Things should not be banned merely as those who should not have them will get hold of them.

~:smoking:

You missed out a bit so I fixed it for you bud :P

Husar

12-08-2011, 01:36

Why must every profoundly idiotic idea be countered with a well thought out argument? Why must I put in more effort in the conversation than the opposite side?

Well, it's not a profoundly idiotic idea, and you must not, I was just saying if you want to prove them wrong, then your approach is somewhat ill-suited IMO. Your choice of course. :shrug:

It is a mild example of frustration at those who have nowhere to force their morality, so they come to the logical conclusion that they should jump on the "games are the Great Satan" bandwagon. Of course they know nothing of games and this leads to them talking about things like how many points you get for stabbing someone in the face when no well-adjusted individual pays attentions to such things too much.

Well, it seems you don't know much about game design or how rewards work in the brain, if noone gave anything about these points, game designers wouldn't opt to award these points.
There are quite a few mechanisms that are put in games to keep people playing, of course they don't always have the same effect on everyone, but studying or discussing them and their effects isn't wrong or stupid or whatever you are implying. Game designers certainly discuss them, but with the goal of earning money, the red cross wants to look at them from a different perspective.

And how do you know these people know nothing about gaming? It may well be the case but you know nothing about them, yet think you can judge them because you assume they just want to take away your most precious hobby of committing virtual war crimes?

CrossLOPER

12-08-2011, 03:34

Well, it's not a profoundly idiotic idea, and you must not, I was just saying if you want to prove them wrong, then your approach is somewhat ill-suited IMO. Your choice of course. :shrug:
I would not care if they did not have the power to affect me.

Well, it seems you don't know much about game design or how rewards work in the brain, if noone gave anything about these points, game designers wouldn't opt to award these points.
There are quite a few mechanisms that are put in games to keep people playing, of course they don't always have the same effect on everyone, but studying or discussing them and their effects isn't wrong or stupid or whatever you are implying. Game designers certainly discuss them, but with the goal of earning money, the red cross wants to look at them from a different perspective.
In most cases, the overall objective to earning all these points is not really focusing on the face-stabbing mechanic, but reaching the next rank or netting an achievement, which is something a game design/behavioral psychologist double major such as yourself should immediately recognize. Competitionist goals are something a little bit different than a person actually glorifying the act of face stabbing. There most certainly exist nutbars that have developed a perversion for forming virtual slits in virtual human bodies in virtual worlds, but I have yet to meet them. Perhaps I did, it's just that they betrayed their nutbar nature and I tend not to associate with those individuals.

And how do you know these people know nothing about gaming? It may well be the case but you know nothing about them, yet think you can judge them because you assume they just want to take away your most precious hobby of committing virtual war crimes?
You mentioned in your previous point that it is worth studying the effects of gaming on individuals. This has already been done. The general consensus is yes, games tend to be very immersive and there is a very large degree of input with video games. Though in practice, scoring three kills in a row in Modern Warfare 3 is not moving in the direction of becoming the knife fetish demographic. I don't think they are going to "take away" my "most precious hobby". At most, the stated objective is to modify the scoring mechanic to reflect Geneva Convention rules. How? Negative scoring if you shoot a friendly/non-combatant? That already exists. It's call "friendly fire kill" and most servers have that disabled to prevent minimize lessen griefing.

There is no application. There is no cause for this to exist. Who is this meant to protect? Civilians? I don't even recall civilians existing in the core gameplay of major titles. Oh wait, there were civilians in those really old FMV arcade games where a bunch of random people would come out from behind boxes in a warehouse and you had a second to decide whether to shoot them or not. Usually, you received major penalties for killing a hostage/civilian.

I am looking at a wall full of game boxes I have collected over the past two decades. You want a more recent example? SWAT 4. Automatic game over if a civilian dies. Massive penalties for not being able to bring as many people out alive - friend or foe. Thief constantly reminded you that "you are a thief, not an assassin". Try executing a civilian in within earshot of a security officer in any Deus Ex game. Even Duke ****ing Nukem had a few little bits where, if you killed a dancer, aliens would immediately teleport in to "fry your sick ***". In Doom 3, if for some bizarre reason you decide to kill UAC personnel trying to assist you, bad things would spawn in the next room to punish you. Subtle. Even a simple revamp of a classic shooter, without any help from the Red Cross, offhandedly managed to tackle this non-issue.

Again, I ask you: Why is this necessary?

Greyblades

12-08-2011, 12:36

No russian. That is the crux of the matter, the red cross were really offended by the no russian level of modern warfare 2.

CrossLOPER

12-08-2011, 13:52

No russian. That is the crux of the matter, the red cross were really offended by the no russian level of modern warfare 2.
Glad to see that they are working on their backlog from 2009.

Makarov was a terrorist. The player took control of a US operative undercover as a terrorist under Makarov's command. At the end of the level, when Makarov puts a bullet between the player's eyes, his plot becomes apparent, and the next scene is of the US in the middle of an invasion by the RF. The irony is that the CIA operative killed was working to prevent the conflict. It was relevant, in context, and showed consequences of the actions the player was part of.

Oh, and there are no points, no achievements, no trophies, nothing. All you get is an invasion of the US due to Joseph Allen's failure to see through the ruse woven by Makarov.

Greyblades

12-08-2011, 13:56

And you think the red cross even noticed that? I doubt they even had a guy play it and just watched a youtube video and closed the weindow before it finished.

Husar

12-08-2011, 14:32

I would not care if they did not have the power to affect me.

Yes, that's exactly why I'm saying gamers may not want to respond to them in a way that convinces them even more that games make us gamers aggressive and bloodthirsty.

In most cases, the overall objective to earning all these points is not really focusing on the face-stabbing mechanic, but reaching the next rank or netting an achievement, which is something a game design/behavioral psychologist double major such as yourself should immediately recognize. Competitionist goals are something a little bit different than a person actually glorifying the act of face stabbing. There most certainly exist nutbars that have developed a perversion for forming virtual slits in virtual human bodies in virtual worlds, but I have yet to meet them. Perhaps I did, it's just that they betrayed their nutbar nature and I tend not to associate with those individuals.

Oh, but I'm not, I just happen to read a (german) online gaming magazine that likes to cover these topics and do specials and interviews with people who actually do have majors in these fields.
You also misunderstood what I was trying to say, in a way the point is reaching the next rank, but that is what the player thinks and what the player should think.
The other side is the one where the developer/game designer thinks about how he can get the player hooked, and he comes to the conclusion that letting the player gain ranks is a good way to do that.
In the next step he asks himself how the player could gain ranks, it has to be in a way the player enjoys, or enjoys enough to keep grinding, and then he decides to award points for things like killing somneone with a landmine, points for stabbing someone etc. I don't even think stabbing someone is wrong, the red cross just wants to discuss whether it's a good idea that games reward people for killing others with virtual landmines while in reality a lot of people fight against landmines because they're not as funny and rewarding as games might make some people think.
Would it really ruin games to take away landmines or not to reward people for using landmines in online shooters?

You mentioned in your previous point that it is worth studying the effects of gaming on individuals. This has already been done. The general consensus is yes, games tend to be very immersive and there is a very large degree of input with video games.

Yes, but I'm not sure whther it's been done exhaustively.
But anyway, how about gamers tell the red cross that instead of becoming all aggressive towards them?
After all they invited people to come and give them their opinion on the story, if they wanted to destroy gaming they could just skip the discussion and go straight to the lobbying phase, no?

Though in practice, scoring three kills in a row in Modern Warfare 3 is not moving in the direction of becoming the knife fetish demographic. I don't think they are going to "take away" my "most precious hobby". At most, the stated objective is to modify the scoring mechanic to reflect Geneva Convention rules. How? Negative scoring if you shoot a friendly/non-combatant? That already exists. It's call "friendly fire kill" and most servers have that disabled to prevent minimize lessen griefing.

Uhm, I don't think the Geneva Convention doesn't allow killing enemies, does Modern Warfare 3 even have a significant number of non-combatants in MP?
I'd think shooting friendlies isn't a big issue as it's wrong on every level, rewarding people for killing with mines or showing a lot of torture etc. in SP can be discussed though, from a moral standpoint IMO.
Of course it would only be fair if they brough it up in relation to TV shows like "24" as well.

There is no application. There is no cause for this to exist. Who is this meant to protect? Civilians? I don't even recall civilians existing in the core gameplay of major titles. Oh wait, there were civilians in those really old FMV arcade games where a bunch of random people would come out from behind boxes in a warehouse and you had a second to decide whether to shoot them or not. Usually, you received major penalties for killing a hostage/civilian.

The cause is to make us as persons or us as a society reflect on what we are doing now and then, to check our behaviours, their effects etc. and possibly find ways to improve ourselves.
Even if it leads to nothing for now, it doesn't have to be in vain and it often makes sense to take a step back and reflect.

I am looking at a wall full of game boxes I have collected over the past two decades. You want a more recent example? SWAT 4. Automatic game over if a civilian dies. Massive penalties for not being able to bring as many people out alive - friend or foe. Thief constantly reminded you that "you are a thief, not an assassin". Try executing a civilian in within earshot of a security officer in any Deus Ex game. Even Duke ****ing Nukem had a few little bits where, if you killed a dancer, aliens would immediately teleport in to "fry your sick ***". In Doom 3, if for some bizarre reason you decide to kill UAC personnel trying to assist you, bad things would spawn in the next room to punish you. Subtle. Even a simple revamp of a classic shooter, without any help from the Red Cross, offhandedly managed to tackle this non-issue.

Again, I ask you: Why is this necessary?

Yes, I played SWAT 4 and know Thief.
It's necessary because other games don't do this, telling the player that torture is a good thing etc. (which is arguably another discussion but it has also been studied and found not to work etc. as far as I understand).
You could even say it's not necessary but it's good to take a step back and reflect, whether you see a necessity or not.
Sometimes it takes a closer look to see the necessity, or not, in which case you should have nothing to fear.

CrossLOPER

12-08-2011, 17:22

Yes, that's exactly why I'm saying gamers may not want to respond to them in a way that convinces them even more that games make us gamers aggressive and bloodthirsty.
Look, EA, Activision and all the other companies with money piles are going to lobby this to oblivion. I don't care. Moreover, how is saying "that is stupid, you should go do something else" bloodthirsty?

Oh, but I'm not, I just happen to read a (german) online gaming magazine
Should have pretty much stopped reading right there but...

that likes to cover these topics and do specials and interviews with people who actually do have majors in these fields.
You also misunderstood what I was trying to say, in a way the point is reaching the next rank, but that is what the player thinks and what the player should think.
The other side is the one where the developer/game designer thinks about how he can get the player hooked, and he comes to the conclusion that letting the player gain ranks is a good way to do that.
In the next step he asks himself how the player could gain ranks, it has to be in a way the player enjoys, or enjoys enough to keep grinding, and then he decides to award points for things like killing somneone with a landmine, points for stabbing someone etc. I don't even think stabbing someone is wrong, the red cross just wants to discuss whether it's a good idea that games reward people for killing others with virtual landmines while in reality a lot of people fight against landmines because they're not as funny and rewarding as games might make some people think.
Would it really ruin games to take away landmines or not to reward people for using landmines in online shooters?
Why don't we just take away the guns and just press X to sing along?

I would like to remind you again that these are games that we are talking about. No normal human being is going to say "hurr mines are awesome let's go plant more mines" after making a few claymore kills in Modern Warfare 2. Conversely, no one is going to say "mines are bad, we should stop using mines" if the mines do not exist in the games.

Yes, but I'm not sure whther it's been done exhaustively.
But anyway, how about gamers tell the red cross that instead of becoming all aggressive towards them?
After all they invited people to come and give them their opinion on the story, if they wanted to destroy gaming they could just skip the discussion and go straight to the lobbying phase, no?
I'm so glad that they took the time to discuss some serious issues, like how video games should depict violence.

Seriously. They couldn't think of constructing another campaign concerning something specific such as landmine use or whatever? They have to go after games? Do they seriously think that normal adults are going to be pro laying minefields in schoolyards after playing Call of Duty?

Uhm, I don't think the Geneva Convention doesn't allow killing enemies, does Modern Warfare 3 even have a significant number of non-combatants in MP?
I'd think shooting friendlies isn't a big issue as it's wrong on every level, rewarding people for killing with mines or showing a lot of torture etc. in SP can be discussed though, from a moral standpoint IMO.
Of course it would only be fair if they brough it up in relation to TV shows like "24" as well.
What games are you playing that have you torture human beings? I vaguely remember a trailer for Black Ops where you have a guy getting electrocuted while being interrogated. Guess what? YOU are that guy. YOU are being tortured. It sucks. In Splinter Cell, the only people torturing others are the grimiest, sleaziest human beings imaginable. I don't remember a game that ever had an achievement or gave you points for installing nipple clamps hooked up to some dude.

The cause is to make us as persons or us as a society reflect on what we are doing now and then, to check our behaviours, their effects etc. and possibly find ways to improve ourselves.
Even if it leads to nothing for now, it doesn't have to be in vain and it often makes sense to take a step back and reflect.
Why must they hijack games as their medium to do this?

Anyway, I don't think Call of Duty: East African Grain Distribution Mission is going to sell. However, guess what? The Red Cross can fund their own game and sell that.

Yes, I played SWAT 4 and know Thief.
It's necessary because other games don't do this, telling the player that torture is a good thing etc. (which is arguably another discussion but it has also been studied and found not to work etc. as far as I understand).
You could even say it's not necessary but it's good to take a step back and reflect, whether you see a necessity or not.
Sometimes it takes a closer look to see the necessity, or not, in which case you should have nothing to fear.
What games feature and reward torture? More specifically, what war games reward the player for committing atrocities? Again. There are none.

Husar

12-08-2011, 18:28

Moreover, how is saying "that is stupid, you should go do something else" bloodthirsty?

It isn't, some other posts or quite simply the topic of this thread are to an extent.

Should have pretty much stopped reading right there but...

Racist...

Why don't we just take away the guns and just press X to sing along?

Because guns are allowed as a means to mutilate and kill an enemy in the Geneva Convention?

I would like to remind you again that these are games that we are talking about. No normal human being is going to say "hurr mines are awesome let's go plant more mines" after making a few claymore kills in Modern Warfare 2. Conversely, no one is going to say "mines are bad, we should stop using mines" if the mines do not exist in the games.

I would like to remind you that I never claimed that games make people want to murder others while violating the Geneva conventions.
This isn't necessarily abput the real life impact of games either IMO, could be simply about whether it's okay to glorify things in games which we outlaw in the real world while simultaneously trying to make the games more "immersive". Or is there actually a point at which the game is so immersed that it gets influenced more than it does by playing Super Mario on a Nintendo?
You think not, I think it's worth investigating.

I'm so glad that they took the time to discuss some serious issues, like how video games should depict violence.

Seriously. They couldn't think of constructing another campaign concerning something specific such as landmine use or whatever? They have to go after games? Do they seriously think that normal adults are going to be pro laying minefields in schoolyards after playing Call of Duty?

I don't know what they seriously think, I just know what they want to think about. ~;)

What games are you playing that have you torture human beings? I vaguely remember a trailer for Black Ops where you have a guy getting electrocuted while being interrogated. Guess what? YOU are that guy. YOU are being tortured. It sucks. In Splinter Cell, the only people torturing others are the grimiest, sleaziest human beings imaginable. I don't remember a game that ever had an achievement or gave you points for installing nipple clamps hooked up to some dude.

Manhunt comes to mind, although I didn't play that. I don't know much about the newer Call of Duties as I got bored halfway through MW2 and only played MW1 otherwise.

Why must they hijack games as their medium to do this?

They're relatively new, and they mostly appeal to younger people, or at least many people think that's the case. Like most things that are relatively new and appeal to younger people they go through a lot of scrutiny by older people. Lead-painted toys failed that test. ~;)
Skateboards pulled though and games are very popular nowadays, so I'm not very worried because some people want to have a discussion of the effects.
I'd be much more worried if the older generations didn't even try to care about the well-being of the younger generations anymore.
I can tell you that EA and UbiSoft don't care a lot about your well-being as long as you pay money for their products (similar to how chinese toy-manufacturers...).

Anyway, I don't think Call of Duty: East African Grain Distribution Mission is going to sell. However, guess what? The Red Cross can fund their own game and sell that.

That's a really nice sarcastic remark that has nothing to do with the topic and even less with what the red cross wants to discuss.
It just makes you look like you hate the red cross in general and everything they do. :shrug:

What games feature and reward torture? More specifically, what war games reward the player for committing atrocities? Again. There are none.

RTW, it's generally agreed that exterminating cities yields the most benefits, and it's just the click of a button to murder thousands of virtual people represented by a number!
But if you would look on the bright side for once, if not many people reward violating the geneva convention, then the red cross will not really do much to change our gaming experiences, whatever the outcome of the debate may be. So why the outrage then?

Ironside

12-08-2011, 19:10

I would like to remind you again that these are games that we are talking about. No normal human being is going to say "hurr mines are awesome let's go plant more mines" after making a few claymore kills in Modern Warfare 2. Conversely, no one is going to say "mines are bad, we should stop using mines" if the mines do not exist in the games.

Car explosion.
Thought fireball? Wrong!
Gun shot.
Thought it sounds as TV shots? Wrong!
Shot down.
Thought he flew backwards? Wrong!
Knock out someone.
Thought it's safeish? Wrong!

My point is that there's still a subtile influence by media exposure. Sure we all know murder is bad in real life. The problem occurs when there's more gray zones, like the ticking bomb scenario. Or dealing with those annoying injured enemies.

CrossLOPER

12-08-2011, 21:37

Racist...
Victim. I was talking more about the gaming part.

Because guns are allowed as a means to mutilate and kill an enemy in the Geneva Convention?
By this logic, anything depicting violence should be banned.

I would like to remind you that I never claimed that games make people want to murder others while violating the Geneva conventions.
This isn't necessarily abput the real life impact of games either IMO, could be simply about whether it's okay to glorify things in games which we outlaw in the real world while simultaneously trying to make the games more "immersive". Or is there actually a point at which the game is so immersed that it gets influenced more than it does by playing Super Mario on a Nintendo?
You think not, I think it's worth investigating.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, but about glorifying things that are outlawed: Anyone who thinks that they can pull off something from Saints Row 3 in real life needs to placed into a situation where they are given adequate, professional attention to their mental health. That or their parents need to be slapped. War isn't outlawed, but banging keys on the the keyboard is not going to make you a super duper adept mass murderer. We are no where near that point.

Manhunt comes to mind, although I didn't play that. I don't know much about the newer Call of Duties as I got bored halfway through MW2 and only played MW1 otherwise.
It is a visceral game, yes. Note that the game began with a lethal injection. The culprit behind all of the killing was a murderer who was placed into his unsavory position because he broke the law. He will always be hunted. Also despite all that, Cash, the character you play, does not exactly walk around killing helpless human beings.

They're relatively new, and they mostly appeal to younger people, or at least many people think that's the case. Like most things that are relatively new and appeal to younger people they go through a lot of scrutiny by older people. Lead-painted toys failed that test. ~;)
Skateboards pulled though and games are very popular nowadays, so I'm not very worried because some people want to have a discussion of the effects.
I'd be much more worried if the older generations didn't even try to care about the well-being of the younger generations anymore.
I can tell you that EA and UbiSoft don't care a lot about your well-being as long as you pay money for their products (similar to how chinese toy-manufacturers...).
I'm always curious when people bring an argument like this up. Who buys games for these children? Who controls what they are able to do and not do? Who is responsible for instilling values? The way you keep talking about how games affect people, it is as if we are forced to play.

Also, I don't care what gaming companies think of me, so long as they produce good games and quit trying to scan my personal files.

That's a really nice sarcastic remark that has nothing to do with the topic and even less with what the red cross wants to discuss.
It just makes you look like you hate the red cross in general and everything they do. :shrug:
I think the Red Cross wants to bring their agenda to the table. I am saying that they don't have to hijack a media to bring their message across. They can embrace it instead.

RTW, it's generally agreed that exterminating cities yields the most benefits, and it's just the click of a button to murder thousands of virtual people represented by a number!
But if you would look on the bright side for once, if not many people reward violating the geneva convention, then the red cross will not really do much to change our gaming experiences, whatever the outcome of the debate may be. So why the outrage then?
The TW series has always been horrendously designed and it is easy to exploit certain parts of the games. Extermination is supposed to be the worst, considering that it would raise other problems and it would cost much to undo the damage. In M2TW, you can just make a ton of stacks of heavy swordsmen and murder up and down the map until the game crashes. This is not an example of the philosophy of game design, this is an example of its limitations.

Husar

12-08-2011, 22:24

Victim.

Pity me. I also demand justice!
Let's assume your girlfriend got raped, would you still want to use victim with a negative connotation?

I was talking more about the gaming part.

And I wasn't serious, however that doesn't disqualify their opinion or even that of the people they interview.

By this logic, anything depicting violence should be banned.

Please read my sentence again, I have a strong feeling you understood the opposite of what I said...

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but about glorifying things that are outlawed: Anyone who thinks that they can pull off something from Saints Row 3 in real life needs to placed into a situation where they are given adequate, professional attention to their mental health. That or their parents need to be slapped. War isn't outlawed, but banging keys on the the keyboard is not going to make you a super duper adept mass murderer. We are no where near that point.

Indeed, and that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about an idealistic "Where should we take our society" kind of debate, not about the real life ramifications bloody games can have.
Even if I could mask murdering my neighbor and get away with it (and all his money and other beneficial things), not having to fear any real ramifications or punishment, there is the question whether I should do it. It's a moral question.

It is a visceral game, yes. Note that the game began with a lethal injection. The culprit behind all of the killing was a murderer who was placed into his unsavory position because he broke the law. He will always be hunted. Also despite all that, Cash, the character you play, does not exactly walk around killing helpless human beings.

That's a lot of story attempting to justify that the whole gameplay revolves around killing people in the most brutal ways.

I'm always curious when people bring an argument like this up. Who buys games for these children? Who controls what they are able to do and not do? Who is responsible for instilling values? The way you keep talking about how games affect people, it is as if we are forced to play.

No, we aren't forced to play, but drug addicts also want to have drugs even though they're not good for them. No, that's not a direct comparison but it means that even though we aren't forced to play, that doesn't mean there can't be problems for society.
And children often buy games themselves, are age restrictions binding for shop owners in the USA?

Despite all that, I wasn't saying the red cross is right in assuming that games are only for children, in fact I was pointing out a view that I find outdated myself, but it still exists.

I think the Red Cross wants to bring their agenda to the table. I am saying that they don't have to hijack a media to bring their message across. They can embrace it instead.

Well, so are others, who doesn't have an agenda? Games are for everyone, even the red cross. ~;)

The TW series has always been horrendously designed and it is easy to exploit certain parts of the games. Extermination is supposed to be the worst, considering that it would raise other problems and it would cost much to undo the damage. In M2TW, you can just make a ton of stacks of heavy swordsmen and murder up and down the map until the game crashes. This is not an example of the philosophy of game design, this is an example of its limitations.

Then maybe read what I said afterwards?