Light em up and watch em burn!

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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
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]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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!!


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.

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

[CrossLOPER]

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]

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]

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 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.

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

[Husar]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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