213374U

Another self-righteous post alright. Making such an absolute claim requires that either you are an authority in the matter, or that you provide some proof. You meet none of the requirements, so your point is moot. But that's not the only fact you got wrong in your post. Do some research, and you will see that most crimes are committed without previous planification. Usually people go berserk for some reason and someone dies. People lose control and their emotions override their rational safeguards and moral concerns. Planned, cold blood murders are in fact a minority, if only because most sane people can't do that unless they have killed before. Yeah, fine. But who is going to protect you?

Um. Your personal experiences make you different. It is a fact that people don't all react the same way to certain stimuli. That is why psychological studies are made with groups of individuals and not with a single, 'generic', unremarkable individual. Not everyone has the same force of will, and not everyone's emotional responses are of the same intensity. Again, quit extending your personal circumstances to the rest of the world, it doesn't make for a solid argument. And about the dog... no. 'Better' is too random a concept. No, I'm no better than a dog. More complex, sure. More evolved, sure. But a dog and I are both animals. The only difference is that I have some restraints upon my instincts due to my sentience, but those restraints can only do so much. That, and the fact I wear clothes. As I said, the movie is fiction. I'm pretty sure the kind of conditioning seen in the movie is not possible. Given that fact, Kubrick could do anything he wanted with it, because it's something he had created. The details are beside the point however. What wasn't fiction in the movie was that the guy's behavior was restricted by his subconcious, and that subconcious had been tampered with somehow. I just used the movie as an example because it's extreme in that respect, and it made for a good example.

Yep. Add to that a totally f*cked up magic system and you get the kind of game that makes me cringe just to think of replaying it. Yet for some reason, I enjoyed the Bloodmoon expansion. Perhaps it hat something to do with a more compelling story and the fact that I didn't need to level up my abilities.

Funny how the first paragraph is exactly what I have been saying since page 1. Congratulations on reaching the same conclusion I did. It would have been easier to try and read my posts, though. The same goes for the second paragraph. If you read my posts you will see that I accept that this will not be a problem in 2 or 5 years, I'm aiming at a larger scope here, 20 years at least. And there is still another issue you disregard. Mind is not only your rational 'concious' self, but also your subconcious. Your subconcious knows nothing of 'fiction' or 'reality' and doesn't attend to reason or logic. Still, your instinctive and emotional responses depend greatly on that subconcious, and there is a chance that extremely realistic fictional violence may mess up with it. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Read above. Have you watched 'A clockwork orange'? In case you haven't I'll tell you that in that movie some psycho is conditioned to have involuntary responses to certain stimuli. Namely, he was nauseated by the sole thought of violence, even verbal violence. Still, the guy rationally loved violence and hated himself for becoming such a wuss. Granted, the movie is just fiction, but it serves to illustrate my point on how reason, intelligence or willpower aren't enough to overcome the tricks your mind plays on you. No. People don't choose how they react. Even though you seem to think it would be cool, people are not logical machines. What nonsense is that? I for one don't get a big red light when an emotional response is triggered, often it's some time before I rationalize a movie or whatever has made me sad or cheerful. Despite all your BS about how you place mind over matter and control your natural emotions, I refuse to believe you have suppressed your emotions. Often the utter lack of emotions is the symptom of a sociopath. You don't look like that to me, but then again, I'm no psychiatrist. Oh, and other thing. Please refrain from derailing every thread you participate in into a conversation about you. If you can't control that urge, perhaps it's time you got professional help. The rest of the world are not clones of yourself and therefore any logic reasoning based on 'you' and then applied to the rest of the world is false. That's a known fallacy and I could look up its name for you, but I don't have your willpower. GTA:SA isn't specially gory, and mind you, not that violent compared to other games, either. But again, for the Nth time, the present state of realism and violence in games is not what's being debated here, but the tendency of games to be more and more violent. The question was, Is the Violence in Video game getting too much? and not Are games too violent nowadays? Really, I hope you were being sarcastic.

You are avoiding my argument altogether. I didn't say people can't play evil in games. I said some are uncomfortable with it. Sure, they would probably be able to do it if they had to, but the feeling is still there. Even though it can be controlled, it can't be suppressed, it's the thing with emotions. You may be partially in control, but you can't 'delete' them. My point was that games trigger emotional responses. You argue that people might get over those responses through willpower but that's irrelevant. The fact is games affect people.

It doesn't have anything to do with being 'remarkable'. Every person is different, and hence their emotional responses will be different. It's not supposed to be an exercise of will, you know.

PC.

Yes Hades, I can do that, too. But that doesn't mean everyone can, and you know that. Don't reduce the whole world to yourself. If you have to be anal, at least find a good excuse to.

Um, forgive my asking but, where did you get your degree in psychology? Right now nobody knows that for sure because it's a rather new phenomenon. Sorry, but no amount of bold text is going to convince me of something that's wrong, or at the very least, unproven. I'm not as arrogant as you are, and I will not make such an absolute judgement about what the consequences of having ever increasingly violent and realistic games may be. But I'm still concerned. Again, that must be something you learnt when you were studying to get your degree in psychology. I really love it when people make random assumptions like that. It really puts the scientific method to shame. Perhaps you should read the whole thread. I know that at the present state of realism it's difficult to be influenced by games unless there's a mental health problem involved. But once games become as real as you can imagine, I'm not so sure. After all, what's the difference between real violence and 100% realistic video game violence? Your mind isn't as rational as you would like to think. Sorry, but we're still animals. So says the guy who compares Beethoven to John Carmack and claims to watch snuff movies. I was thinking of giving you a lecture about snuff movies but I don't really see the point. Still, I find it disturbing that you watch that kind of stuff and proclaim it openly. To each his own, I suppose. At least you're not a criminal.

Gromnir wins the day.

KotOR was released a long time ago. Now as far as KotOR 2 is concerned... "

I have, it took me a while but I learned control. After my first encounter with love I figured I needed to control such reactions in order not to make the same mistakes. I think I have been successful over the last 13 years. My, aren't you the nihilistic one? Anyway, that is a very, very sad thing to say. Exactly, what are your goals in life? And you do? Nope. That's why I don't do random assumptions about it. I base my opinions in what I've read from people who have experienced it first-hand, and people with a slight idea on how the human mind works. Emotional in real life. I dont care if a mdl gets blown to bits on my screen. Neither do I. Unfortunately, your mind likes to play tricks on you. A lot of people are uncomfortable with playing the bad guy in RPGs. That's an emotional response, which they can't control even though they know it's not real. Now increase the realism tenfold, and you get my point. You don't know that. Somebody who has been exposed to extreme violence for a long time is very likely to react violently in a situation of extreme (or not so extreme) stress. It's not like people will go nuts overnight, it's more like people having trouble controlling their natural/dormant violent instincts. Another random assumption, I see. The fact that there will be more diversity in game themes doesn't counter the fact that there may be photo-realistic ultra-violent games, so your point is moot.

Yes, I've heard of this. That's what happens when the line between what's acceptable and what's not isn't well defined. What's next, the possibility to slay people you know, family and friends alike? :ph34r:

I know. And I agree with him for the most part on the evaluation of those facts. However I'm still hoping that the SW feel of the game may somehow be able to compensate for those facts... or perhaps not, I don't know. Just let me dream, will ya? :D

Fortunately, Beethoven's compositions don't drive people mad. Real violence does, and that is a fact. You don't want to accept that fact, fine. Welcome to Denial. Population: You.

Right... damn shame.

That is my opinion as well. Despite Hades' relentless bashing of a game he hasn't played yet, I won't comment on the game until I have tried it personally. The whole may still be greater than the sum of the parts, or something.

What can I say? I'm a classic.

Coke it is for me. Not much difference anyway since I only drink it mixed with rum, so...

Good point.

Silent Hill isn't scary. System Shock 2 is scary. Alien vs Predator is the definition of a scary game.

No, but s.t.a.l.k.e.r. contains essences of all three of those games. To be inspired by does not mean to be similar to in any way. Er, Daggerfall and Fallout, maybe. But how does a FPS with faint RPG traits hybrid relate to Elite? It seems like they are shamelessly trying to benefit from the name of one of the best games ever.

It doesn't matter. The fact is that games are becoming increasingly more violent, and nobody really knows for sure how this might affect people on the long run. Violence is bad according to present moral standards. However, it's hard to shake off an instinct which is hard-coded into our genes. My point is we don't need extreme graphical violence putting even more pressure on our moral restraints. It's not like the war tales that were told in old times, this is more like experiencing it first-hand, and that's one hell of a difference. No. The whole rating system is flawed in that it can't protect adults. Obviously, if something is not suited for an adult, it's not suited for children either. If you have a product which is a potential hazard to the healthy adult population, who's responsibility is it? Again, it seems I'm sounding like I'm against violence in games, which I'm not. In certain cases and levels it's tolerable and I've heard of people who can actually blow steam that way, even though that's not my case. I'm just concerned about the increasing level of realism in game violence, and its possible long-term effects on people.

Let's not dumb the discussion down so much, shall we? Again, right now I agree with you. A sane person will not go out on a killing spree just because he just played Postal. However, long-term exposure to real violence will tear down the psychological safeguards that prevent you from acting violently on instinct. That is a fact. Now, what if a game was so real that your mind couldn't tell between fiction and reality? Don't be absurd. There are a lot of things that can turn a person into a psycho and most of them are out of that person's control. Do you really think that sane people actually choose to become serial killers on a whim? Yet another jewel of anti-logic for your collection.

You seem to think that violence can be controlled with a certain amount of willpower or whatever. Well, sorry to break this to you, but it can't. Once you become impervious to it, that means that the psychological and moral barriers that make violence despicable and disgusting have been demolished, and hence you have effectively become a psycho. Note that I'm not talking about the present violence in games, which is not enough to trigger psychological disorders on sane individuals. I'm talking about what game violence can become if the present increasing rate of gaming realism stays constant for say, 20 years. If you have a product that can turn healthy masses into psychos, you won't need to ban RPG launchers for civilian use, because people would rather go close up and personal.