213374U

ATM ~ Nikkfurie - th

My username is just some random nonsense intended as a mock of l33tsp33k. It's in no way supposed to mean that I consider myself better than anyone else as the occasional troll wannabe has tried to imply. I was rather baffled to find that CS and other games players actually use my username... which only strengthens my reasons for using it. The current avatar is a Kilrathi pilot. The Kilrathi are the cat-like race that is humanity's nemesis in Origin's great Wing Commander saga. The sig is pretty self-explainatory.

So what are you waiting for? Oh, of course. It's better to stay and whine than beat it and leave the rest of us live in our beloved tyranny of the majority. My narrow interpretation? Sorry, but unlike you, I don't need to "interpret" everything. I just read. That's what the thread is about. If you feel like derailing it to whatever you, in your detachment from reality, think it should be about, the least you could do is make a warning at the beginning of your post so the rest of us won't take it seriously. You are welcome to find a quote by myself in which I claim that discussion about whichever topics shouldn't be allowed. No, not only was it argued that the player should be able to witness horrid scenes, but to actively participate in them, as the thread title clearly states. When the rush of whatever it is you are on passes, perhaps you will realize this. Right. So now it's a metaphor. Interesting that they would use a clear depiction of parasitism as a metaphor for rape that only you, RS and SW saw.

The paradigm of oversimplification.

You really have a knack for going off on a tangent. I have not advocated capital punishment. War crimes are still war crimes, and they are, according to military legislation, judged and punishment administered in courts-martial. And as for tyranny of the majority, you are more than welcome to go live under a rock if you don't like it. No. The thread title is (since you have proven you are utterly unable to read and/or interpret) "Should you be able to do anything in a crpg?" "You" as in the PC. If what you are suggesting that everytime that the PC were to engage in an immoral action the screen would fade to black, it's you who is setting up a straw man. Again, that's not what's being argued. I have no problems with the driving plot of a game being the brutal murder and rape of your family, provided that it was not shown in an explicit way. But that would not be "you" doing it, as in "should you be able to do anything in a crpg?". So, yeah. Right. I suppose you think viruses are rapists, too? Yeah, they attach their protein-based sexual organs to the walls of innocent bacteria, and then they proceed to fill them with their genetic material. Yes, just like those wasps that paralyze spiders in order to plant their eggs upon them in order to ensure their offspring's sustenance. FYI it's called parasitism, not rape. How about you use your common sense instead of blindly swallowing the first result of a director's mental diarrhea? ) In a perfect society, the need for laws would be marginal since every individual's moral convictions would be enough. But that is just a utopia. You keep conveniently ignoring what I said about all of that just being "wishful thinking". You see, unlike you, I have a grasp on reality. No, it's not "quite likely". You are just putting forward your own interpretation of the study as the only valid one. It said that one of the possible causes was the excitement, but not necessarily the only one. And certainly people's sensitivity to violence isn't affected by playing Pac-Man. As for the rest of the argument, well, you can keep trying to solve every problem with a stroke of your magic wand, or you may try to find gradual solutions to problems that are too big to take on all at once. How does your point 3 relate to the fact that you won't be getting what you're asking for? Fortunately, most people don't share your particular brand of moral relativism or your odd notions of mature content's potential as an educational tool.

You are still trying to imply that I'm making predictions. All I'm doing is stating that we don't know what the consequences may be. That includes you, with all your "there is little evidence to support it", and your convenient skepticism. Ah, yes. That's one of the advantages of arguing with someone that is an expert on everything. You always have some first (or at worst, second)-hand experience about nearly everything. Not bad for a croupier. But at any rate, that is not a valid example. Not for this issue, anyway. It is not being argued what the effect of exposure to real violence is. At best? I assume you meant at worst. And how is alcohol a threat to social stability? Are you nuts? If anything, prohibition would be a threat to social stability. Not alcohol. There have always been people that make an abusive use of alcohol, and there will always be. There is no way to solve all the problems that drive people to use it. No. You are deluded because you think that just by waving your magic wand you can instantly solve all the endemic problems that our society has. The road to solving big problems is paved with laws and policies meant to deal with small parts of those problems. Of course I'm being argumentative. There is no point in presenting a convincing case when all you're doing is put up absurd examples that are so easy to debunk. It's your fault, not mine. And as I said before, accidents and problems related to caffeine have more to do with sleep deprivation than caffeine itself. And as for alcohol, that simply doesn't have as easy a solution as violent games would. Great. So now you're surreptitiously putting down masochists as mentally unfit. How convenient for your discourse. Sorry, but they aren't. Since that was the major pillar of your argument, without it, the argument crumbles. It's still between two (or more) consenting adults, and as such, it's perfectly fine. Huh? That was precisely an instance in which the lack of self-censorship would allow for the release of such a product, and would therefore need to be supplied by legislation. It's not a fault with self-censorship itself.

Anything goes, but it depends on how is your character built. If you are good at making targeted shots (high PE&LK) you should go for small guns or energy weapons. If not, you're probably better off with the Bozar. Yes, removing the families has an effect on Reno's ending.

Oh, of course. So why should murder be banned? Rape? Paedophilia? After all, it's only the majority banning random things that don't conform to their sensibilities. Those bigoted mobs... Again, this falls into the category of "vague fantasies", much like conversation on mature themes, or violent literature. Those will never come anywhere near the realism of a video game, considering the rate at which it's being improved. Oh, that exists already. Or quite similar. But the PC doesn't actually carry those actions out (in case you have forgotten what the thread name is), and it's not depicted in an explicit way. There was no intercourse that I know of in Alien. The sole idea is absurd. But hey, who am I to state the obvious and draw you out of your... personal... world? Not as hypocritical as your demanding of interactive, ultra realistic, immoral possibilities in your games "just for educational purposes". Do I lack imagination? Perhaps. But at least I'm not a bored snob. ) Re-read the topic title. Yes, I suppose I am a totalitarian, if by totalitarism you understand the idea that society must have rules if we are to survive and progress. And those rules must have mechanisms in order to be implemented and enforced. How proud I am to be a totalitarian. That, I am. But it's not only my personal taste. It's a matter of being in the safe side of a problem, and being consequent with something called moral minimums that supposedly any western citizen living in community possesses. And forgive me for saying that if someone enjoys explicit rape or pedophilia in a game, he is a sick bastard. I'm a totalitarian, after all. Oh, I forgot to add that since governments are at least as totalitarian as I am, I don't think we will be seeing any of what you're asking for anytime soon. So the whole discussion is moot.

Yeah, but there are studies that suggest that such connection might exist. It's nice of you to throw in some speculation of your own into the mix, but I doubt anyone versed enough in the matter would agree that being exposed to ultra violence would cause the exact opposite of what is being argued. Ghandi was an exception, and delinquency wasn't understood the same way back then. You should know better than to try and twist the language in an attempt to confuse me. That is not to say that all delinquents are violent, but crime and violence are closely related. You don't hear me arguing about banning alcohol because this topic wasn't about it, to begin with. But it's a different matter, and alcohol was banned. It didn't work, because alcohol is cheap and easy to produce. Games are neither. Next. Because that's out of the scope of any legislation. I'm sure you think that if you were elected president you'd solve world hunger in 12 days, but things are a bit more complicated than just "fixing the causes of misery". On the other hand, until we don't know for sure what kind of repercussions violent games may have on what sorts of people, controlling it would be the wise thing to do. And that is a very realistic action to take. Wrong. Caffeine doesn't affect your judgement. Sleep deprivation is usually behind those accidents. A masochist is a consenting adult. If not, it's rape, and it's a crime. No, it doesn't. Do you really think so? You are even more deluded than I thought. If marketing studies revealed that a game in which there was paedophilia could be a hit, and there wasn't a legislation that would ban it, you can be sure we would have it sooner or later.

You are mistaking expanding and illustrating one's view point with copy-pasting. Posters here do the former. You do the latter. You need help. Badly.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating the exact same argument again and again? Let's see. We are not blaming games for violence. But can games do something to increase violence? That is what isn't clear. Experts don't know for sure, nor do you. Is it so freaking difficult to understand? Again, rope doesn't promote violence. And hanging yourself harms nobody else other than yourself. This is too easy...

Just with that kind of info I can't say. I'll have to wait and see the game. I have seen it. But I just can't remember.

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.