alanschu

So now it's the fact that it's a "serious" setting?

I find the most recent post ironic haha.

Done! Azure79 Aristes

The thing I love about the COD games is the setting. The first COD is the first game I can remember where I actually caught myself ducking in front of my monitor when I was taking cover in the game. The sound in particular I thought was really impressive, but it was just such an intense experience.

It is, but as far as I'm concerned non-linearity is not really correlated with fun.

And, given the discussion about recidivism rates, so do the people that are harmed after they are released. One of the most famous Behavioural Psychologists, and arguably most famous psychologist, B.F. Skinner, would challenge that statement. He pondered whether or not free will is actually an illusion or not. The unfortunate thing is that it's not something that's really falsifiable (and like good little scientists, it tends to be a belief rather than statement of fact). Here's some fun metaphysical thoughts to think about. I just mentioned that there's the idea that free will is an illusion. One could quickly argue that that statement isn't true, and demonstrate it by actively choosing to do something that you typically would not do. Hence, you freely chose to do something. However, cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing. In order to preserve your belief that free will exists, you perform an action to demonstrate that your free will chose you to do something. A determinist would argue that your decision to choose the action that you did stems from a variety of influences, from all sorts of operant and classical conditioning, to the cognitive dissonance that you'd be facing. As such, the action that you choose to do to demonstrate your free will is actually affected by the norms and mores of society (in addition to its Laws), your interpretation of what you consider typical behaviour for yourself, your own motivations and so forth. As such, you likely wouldn't choose to perform an action that would create further cognitive dissonance (like say, murder someone just to prove a point), and that the precise action that you choose at that time is the sum of all the influences and processes going on in your mind. I found it interesting to discuss this stuff in school, though in the end I personally do not believe that free will is an illusion. I can understand the thought process though, and I think it would have been interesting to take more than elementary courses on it. But alas.

Recidivism rates can be a bit misleading, because they often are not transparent, and look at what crime was committed in the first place (i.e. a violent one), and then whether or not that person went back to prison at all. One of the common causes of returning to prison is due to a parole violation. Recidivism rates also double count individuals, since they're only looking at crimes committed since a release from prison. The people most likely to commit another crime and contribute to recidivism rates are those that already demonstrated that they will commit another crime. As we know, people like these are why justice systems consider ideas like three strike laws and so forth. Hence why repeat offenses are heavily considered when it is time to sentence. Though the recidivism rates of criminals that were convicted for murder and sexual crimes usually have smaller recidivism rates. According to a study done in 1994, the lowest rates of recidivism were "for homicide (41 percent), sexual assault (41 percent), rape (46 percent)." A publication by the State of Washington had similar results. Of course, this is most likely impacted by the fact that criminals serving sentences for these crimes also serve longer sentences and are less able to commit crimes. They also get out of prison older. There could also be an issue with the Law of Small Numbers since the rates of these crimes is significantly less. Of course, simply being the lowest doesn't necessarily mean "low enough." It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the recidivism rates are too high. No offense, but I think this is a weak defense. People aren't really rational beings at the best of times, least of all when they've become a victim. I wouldn't call them the harbingers of fair decision making. People get vindictive over traffic accidents. As an aside, violent crime rates seem to be dropping since 1994.

Another victim, with video! http://chud.com/articles/articles/21294/1/...DCOM/Page1.html (contains foul language)

I blame Ellis Island

I found it entertaining http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...ckrolls-Yahtzee

The inaccurate portrayal?

I used to be like you too. You'll change

Fantasy/abstraction vs realistic portrayal of events which actually happened in a real-world setting. So how long until MW2 becomes cartoon violence, as it seems GTA has become (by the article. Because the latest form of media entertainment is always starting talks about a "realistic portrayal of events that actually happened" in the eyes of the media and the status quo. Once upon a time Death Race was the big target for its horrific violence and simulation of running people down in the game, Carmageddon style. I agree with numbers about how stuff like this helps people look at games more seriously. This reminds me of the controversy about Red Orchestra telling the story of a German soldier in the Russian Front. Oh noes, he's a German!

Postal may not be a mainstream game (it still saw dual page ads in PC Gamer though), but Grand Theft Auto 3 certainly was. And the rest of the series. Not to mention games like Manhunt, Bully, etc. What implications are you referring to about playing a terrorist in a very realistic setting ripped from today's headlines. Is this the game that's finally gonna truly desensitize us all and make us indifferent about killing other human beings? Should things be off limits? And if so, who decides what should be off limits?

Yeah it was a part of my training but that was a long time ago. Someone was telling me that it's only chest compressions now and just said "Buuuuuh?"

You will be spared during the upcoming Apocalypse

It's hardly the first time a game has gone around killing innocent people. Oh wait, now it's as a "terrorist" so it's different? In the late 90s there was a "great" game called Postal. I'm saying the fact that it's disturbing indicates that perhaps game players a human beings and not desensitized drones that go around on shooting sprees killing innocent people.

LOL well played Team USA

Hasn't CPR evolved to where it's no longer considered necessary to give artificial respiration, just chest compressions?

See, that's what's kind of interesting. Isn't it a good thing we find it disturbing? Especially since videogames are apparently desensitizing us to no ends...

I am wondering how long until someone nerdrages: "WHY DID YOU PICK THAT TALENT!?"

I'm also curious about the context behind it. Funny that the once vilified Grand Theft Auto is now dismissed as being cartoon violence.

Well, wouldn't it still technically be England? I don't know how people over there refer to themselves, so I am guessing my impression is wrong given your statements. Did the entire identity and concept of "England" disappear when it became the United Kingdom? I thought you'd still get people that would refer to themselves as Scots and whatnot, but perhaps not. I do understand that England as a sovereign nation no longer exists though

I have been told it's very bad to perform CPR on someone with a pulse.

Bah, mine is only 11!