213374U

Don't try to pull a Volo on me. I didn't say that removing violence from games will eradicate violence in society. But it's undeniable that controlling violence in entertainment will decrease the desensitization, which may in turn decrease the chances of certain people from going berserk. Decrease, not eradicate. No. You are making analogies between things that aren't related, and then you are trying to forcefully find a relation. Products that only hurt whoever uses them shouldn't be banned, because the consequences of using such products only affect you. Violent games, if they were proven to lift violence tolerance IRL, don't fall into that category. Any particular reason for your use of the chemical generic denomination of caffeine instead of its common name? What are you trying to accomplish? A word of advice: using convoluted arguments in long posts adorned with archaic or specific language will only result in people ignoring your posts. The ability to convey a point in as less words as possible is also the mark of a good conversationalist. But at any rate, caffeine only acts as an excitant. It's not likely to have any psychological effects or scramble your violence tolerance threshold. I have never seen a similar argument over it to the one we are having about violent games. As for sugar and illnesses, read the previous argument. Sex as in intercourse between two (or more) consenting adults, with all the variations you can think of. But once you go further, you are more than likely hurting someone against their will. That is where the line is drawn. Again, you are trying to associate two different things that aren't really related.

This just keeps getting better. So now you are proposing to suppress something that has been a constant in human society since the dawn of time, and even something that may arguably be hard-coded into our DNA, instead of just containing a relatively new form of "culture" whose desensitizing effect could potentially increase the incidence of violence. Yes, that's a sound argument alright. No. Your drinking cola doesn't affect me at all. However, it is debatable whether a violent game may bring you over the edge if you are already unstable, or under another set of circumstances that are beside the point. That is the difference. Uh... you are really trying hard to come up with absurd analogies, aren't you? Nice try at changing the topic. It's not sex we're talking about. Sex doesn't harm anyone, and I'm all for ultra realistic sex games. Violence and sex are not in the same league. Next. I think I mentioned that it was "wishful thinking" on my part. As always, the C.R.E.A.M. factor prevails above all others. Lots of stuff there. No, I'm not suggesting that under no circumstance shooting children is justified. But I can't come up with an instance in which it would make me enjoy a game more. No, I'm not familiar with F.E.A.R. No, rape isn't always a crime of power. That's a dangerous generalization. And while I can picture an infinity of scenarios in which it would be coherent with a plot to have a [insert race/species/sex here] rape a [insert race/species/sex here], I don't see how it would make a game any more enjoyable to have an explicit rape scene. And I don't remember about Pulp Fiction.

Simply "use" them, and then go to your PipBoy2000. Under "archives" there should be a list of all the downloaded contents from holodisks.

Now that you mention it. I don't think that it's even people's fault. It's those damn brain cells that don't work as they should. They should be banned. No, wait. It's not the brain cells. It's the ions responsible for the spread of the nervous impulse within the cells. Yeah, things like Na+ and K+ should be illegal. No, wait! Those ions are just obeying Coulomb's law! They are innocent. I think that banning Coulomb's constant would do the trick, since without it, there can't be electric fields. My, you're a genius!

Oh. I see. And isn't controlling violent content in entertainment a way of containing the free spread of violence as a perfectly normal thing in our society? Sure. That's why the example was absurd. Everyone knows that cars are potentially deadly. But they are necessary for lots of things, and the motor industry is an important one. On the other hand, the gaming industry is already strong without the need for ultra realistic violence. And there is no benefit at all from having that kind of stuff, other than a marginal desire and the lust of some people for a "universal lack of censorship". There you have your risk-benefit calculation. What's interesting is the "inelegant" way you have of twisting my argument. Obviously, game devs have no voice in what's acceptable in society, and I don't recall saying so. I thought I had already made it clear that drawing conclusions from my statements was my prerogative, but I digress. Game devs have full control over the contents they release. Right now, the only guidelines game studios follow are those laid by legislation and marketing studies. But there comes a point where ethics should come into play, too. As I said in my previous post, no amount of money would convince me to help develop a game in which you could do certain things. Self censorship? Call it what you will. For me it's more like acknowledging that one's work may have a significant impact on other people. I see you have masterfully dodged the question. Next time you don't feel like answering a question that makes you uncomfortable, just say so. You don't need to go off on a tangent like that.

Ah, yes. The government this, the government that. The government should be responsible for my complete safety and total happiness. The government should provide me with everything I may ever need. The government is to blame for everything that doesn't go my way. It's the government after all. But ask yourself this question. Would you want to participate in the development of "Snuff Studio Tycoon"? I know I wouldn't.

Yep, you are right. I think you are conceited. Aren't regular humans automatically assigned 1s in all of their stats in WW? Way to go, Ender. The other guy was just plain deluded, but you're claiming you're supernatural.

Actually, it'd be a kickass addition. Elder: "Wassup d00d?!" Chosen One: "Uh, yeah. So, I hear you have a task for me?" Elder: "Yeh m8. teh village is teh sux. we even got some fxxing single headed brahmin d00d! U need to go grab teh

Boring.

And illegally large.

bah

Have you heard about verbal violence? Oh, right. That doesn't fit into your radical interpretation of... everything. So far nobody has stated that. So... yeah. It doesn't, and I don't need it. I don't play games to kill monsters. I play games to be immersed in the story. However, ultra violence and other stuff just for the sake of it will only substract from that enjoyment. Experts disagree. And since you are no expert, you auto-lose.

That's Volo's discussing strategy. First he twists your stance into something ridiculously extreme, and then he proceeds to attack that stance. If he didn't do it, he wouldn't be able to participate in discussions because he wouldn't have arguments. What is unknown is whether he really can't see beyond the extremes he argues or is just his personal way of trolling. No. My arguments suggest nothing. They are what they are, don't draw conclusions from them. That's my prerogative. Using people with anger management issues was just an example, and a rather extreme one at that. The thing is, as you have already admitted that violent visual (books are only as explicit as you can imagine) entertainment desensitizes people to violence. That is a problem. Banning cars would undoubtedly prevent lots of deaths. But the car industry is too important to shut down and the economic recession caused by doing so would be unimaginable. Not to mention that driving a car is not a violent act in itself, while violence in games, however fictional, is still violence. Yes, you are being absurd. Oh, I agree. Prohibitions are useless. It should be an initiative on the developers' part. That's wishful thinking, though, since games are an industry, and as such is driven solely by profit. Uh... so how exactly does the ability to rape, the ability to slaughter children with a minigun, the ability to abuse your wife boost your enjoyment of games?

Of course. That's why any psychologist will tell you that things learned during childhood are integrated into personality and are no longer questioned or rationalized. In short, everything marks a child's personality while it's forming. The Jesuits knew that all too well. But of course, you have your own theories.

In fact I found the E3 game's combat more complex than JK's "swing and jump" system. Once you master it, the game is a pushover, but it really shines in the duel mode. The only real problems seem to be with the balance (Grievous and that Agent Smith dude do cheat), and relatively low number of duelists and arenas. But after all, the duel mode wasn't supposed to be the game's focus, but a goodie. So it's ok for me. I think I'd pay for a SW fight game a la Tekken.

Uh. Next time you try one of your "special brand" comebacks, just make sure the grammar is arranged in such a manner that the post at least makes sense. But come think of it, if no one can understand your posts, you don't risk making a fool of yourself. Ah, you're such a sly one, aren't you? So, yeah, you've won. But at what? You can't really tell.

When Volo begins to turn the discussion into a black or white issue and then asks for proof for one of his absurd extremes, it's obvious I have won. You Lose!

Yeah. It's not Tekken, but then again, it's not supposed to be.

Ah, life is so simple when things are black or white, isn't it?

"Thanks" for simplifying my argument. I wasn't saying that if you murder someone in an ultra-realistic game you instantly become a psycho. However, violent acts are not commited with a cool head most of the times. People with anger management issues have very thin safeguards to prevent them from going berserk in a situation that tests their self-control. If such person is used to graphic, ultra-explicit violence, a violent act may not seem so out of place, since the "WTF am I doing?" threshold has been lifted somewhat. And people with anger management issues are not exactly rare. Note that I'm not against violent games. I was just arguing that "normal" people are not impervious to constant exposure to graphic violence, and that is a fact.

Not true. Frequent exposure to fictional (or real) violence tends to erode the psychological barriers that make violence something despicable and unacceptable in a given situation. Take for example a child whose father beats him and his mother on a frequent basis. It's likely the child will become an abuser himself. Obviously, games don't go that far, but they can act as a catalyst for violent behaviours in people that are not completely stable. But then again, many things can. The thing is that games are the only thing that allow for such interactivity in fictional violent acts. And no, Volo. Not everyone that is not completely stable should be locked up.

"Good is a point of view, Anakin."

You forgot to mention obvious. And how is it sad?

Already have. Got the E3 game and I think it's worth what I paid for it. The duel mode alone is almost worth it. If only they had worked a bit more in game balance... And Battlefront 2 is looking killer (as in what the original one should have been to begin with).

Was I arguing the reasons? No. As always, you are just intentionally missing the point. The facts are, that scene is not what one would expect from Vader. End of story.