should you be able to do anything in a crpg?

[metadigital]

that is precisely why I would never play the Sims. It's pointless. And Fable sounds just as bad.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You wouldn't use a baby, because it wouldn't normally be a very good firebreak. The fact you can makes the game stupid and unrealistic, not "safe and comforting", or whatever the designer was going for.

 

Think a little about people without perfect social skills. They might play a game as they act in RL, then they can see how other NPCs react to this behaviour. Then they can load a save and play differently, and see the difference.

 

If you are going to allow heinous behaviour, you necessarily need to have repurcussions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Obviously. but if your using a baby as a firebreak then any pretence you are taking the game the slightest bit seriously is gone.The only instance I can think of would be if your house catches fire, everyone dies and you have an immortal baby in the smouldering rubble, but the odds on that too extreme to worry about and if it's an engineered fire, again we are back to square one.

 

In order to ruin immerison, one would have to consider how likely that an action would realisticall be. In the example of FO thats certainly something that can happen as a normal part of the game, even if you never intended to shoot one.

 

Using RPGs as some sort of life simulator dosnt strike me as particularly healthy, especially since the situations in them and real life are markedly different as would be the "solutions".

 

Yes, but that is something that "evil players" baulk at since it curtails their freedom to be evil.

[metadigital]

Of course kids in general don't jump off a cliff, that's not a very good example. But I think all of us, even adults, are more affected by what we see than most believe.

For example, the wifebeating in fable, I honestly think that it can give kids a strange way of looking at females. Not only because of the game , but the game can have some, although small effect on some of them.

And this is not some crazy thing like going out with a flamethrower on a killing spree, wifebeating is very common.

And it doesn't make the game better, so they could have skipped it completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I can't let that stand, sorry.

 

Wifebeating is common because children copy their parents, not because one day men decide that they need a bit of sparring practice. That's why women in abusive releationships have generally come from a family where their mother was abused.

 

A game environment strikes me as a perfect place to set up the problem and demonstrate the issues to help teach children how bad and wrong it is, and the consequences.

 

The second MOST important part of teaching manners, good behaviour and ethics is the teaching the repurcussions to the children. Once they can associate a given (bad) result with poor behaviour, they will avoid it. I have seen this work on "irredeemable" children. (The MOST IMPORTANT aspect is mutual respect: children respond to hypocrisy just as adults do. They treat the practitioner with disdain.)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

A game environment strikes me as a perfect place to set up the problem and demonstrate the issues to help teach children how bad and wrong it is, and the consequences.

 

The second MOST important part of teaching manners, good behaviour and ethics is the teaching the repurcussions to the children. Once they can associate a given (bad) result with poor behaviour, they will avoid it. I have seen this work on "irredeemable" children. (The MOST IMPORTANT aspect is mutual respect: children respond to hypocrisy just as adults do. They treat the practitioner with disdain.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Far more complex and in some cases dangerous. It's not the goal of an RPG to do this, unless it's one designed specifically for that task. Worse if you actually put yourself up as some sort of moral teaching aid, you sure as hell better be prepared for the backlash when little johnny goes nuts.

 

While there is merit for tools of this nature, they dont fall under the catagory of game.

 

Quite honestly games designers are not qualified for that sort of role. Any cathartic effect should simply be a happy accident.

[metadigital]

Now you're going off the deep end.

 

Are you telling me that game developers can't be trusted to show that wife-beating will land you in a "jail" or beaten up by a mob, or something?

 

How is that too complex for a) the developers, b) the audience, and c) a child?

[Zagor]

Yes, showing that a bad action can have bad consequences is a very good way to show responsibility from a game developer.

I's all about how you do it. If you beat up your wife, you shouldn't get cheers from the other males in the game for example. (but wife beating shouldn't be allowed anyway in a game, so thats a bad example)

And you shouldn't get more points for killing a black man than a white, like I've heard you could in some game. That's an example of developers not taking their responsibility.

[metadigital]

You wouldn't use a baby, because it wouldn't normally be a very good firebreak. The fact you can makes the game stupid and unrealistic, not "safe and comforting", or whatever the designer was going for.

 

Think a little about people without perfect social skills. They might play a game as they act in RL, then they can see how other NPCs react to this behaviour. Then they can load a save and play differently, and see the difference.

 

If you are going to allow heinous behaviour, you necessarily need to have repurcussions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously. but if your using a baby as a firebreak then any pretence you are taking the game the slightest bit seriously is gone. ...

In order to ruin immerison, one would have to consider how likely that an action would realisticall be. In the example of FO thats certainly something that can happen as a normal part of the game, even if you never intended to shoot one.

 

Using RPGs as some sort of life simulator dosnt strike me as particularly healthy, especially since the situations in them and real life are markedly different as would be the "solutions".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree.

 

I might be bored one day and choose to burn a baby. It's only a virtual baby, and I don't like little children that much anyway. Burn it. And if it screams in agony, I will either be pleased with myself for doing something novel (and a little horrified at the result), or so disgusted at the sound (thankfully smell-o-vision never took off) that I will not want to repeat it. I doubt whether I would do it again if the whole process was unpleasant (gameplay-wise), like losing the PC to life imprisonment, or having to do some involved button pressing to scroll through pages of weighty dialogue of a court case to get my character back. Or not.

 

Either way, I would never actually burn a baby. And it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Now you're going off the deep end.

 

Are you telling me that game developers can't be trusted to show that wife-beating will land you in a "jail" or beaten up by a mob, or something?

 

How is that too complex for a) the developers, b) the audience, and c) a child?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Possibly, it as 5 am after all :D

 

They could, but in an RPG your supposed to have choice. If wife beating always lands you in jail then you dont have one. Plus you have to factor in things like being caught if your simply caught that when you beat your wife that dosnt do a lot for immersion either. So if you want to maintain the immersion then you need to allow for the fact that you might not get caught and therein lies the danger. What on paper looks very simple is in fact rather complex.

 

Which is why as tools designed specifically for a purpose I think it's an idea with merit, but not one to handled by games designers. For a game. Dont think you should touch that sort of moral preaching with 10 foot pole, games are not close enough to real life to tackle those sorts of issues and applying modern morality to a fantasy or other era game is about as immersion destroying as you can get.

[metadigital]

I just want to burn some Sim babies.

[ncr]

...you sure as hell better be prepared for the backlash when little johnny goes nuts.

[Zagor]

In an rpg it's very difficult to pull this off, I agree to that. Because you have choices in an rpg. May be easier in a linear actiongame, where the game already has made up the choices in advance.

 

Now it's time for some sleep, goodnight to you

[metadigital]

Yes, showing that a bad action can have bad consequences is a very good way to show responsibility from a game developer.

I's all about how you do it. If you beat up your wife, you shouldn't get cheers from the other males in the game for example. (but wife beating shouldn't be allowed anyway in  a game, so thats a bad example)

And you shouldn't get more points for killing a black man than a white, like I've heard you could in some game. That's an example of developers not taking their responsibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, no argument there.

 

I'll give the example I gave in the other thread:

 

A community mod has a choice for your character to either perform euthenasia on a terminally ill child, or infuse her with vampire blood (saving her from death but cursing her with eternal undeadedness). It is obviously a core dilemma for the game, and it directly effects both the PC alignment and the course of the game. That, I believe, is an appropriate mature content plot line.

 

Having a field full of babies and setting fire to it because there just happens to be a can of kerosene in the middle of that field is not.

 

:D

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

A community mod has a choice for your character to either perform euthenasia on a terminally ill child, or infuse her with vampire blood (saving her from death but cursing her with eternal undeadedness). It is obviously a core dilemma for the game, and it directly effects both the PC alignment and the course of the game. That, I believe, is an appropriate mature content plot line.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes sounds very good. However I dont see any RL implications since Vampire blood isnt exactly available from Tesco.

 

Such non reality is automatic protection for anyone not loopy in the first place.Which is probably as good a reason as any to stay away from the "real world" when it comes to RPGs.

[metadigital]

Sleep is probably a very good idea, I can't believe I'm arguing for the real immolation of Sim babies and the merits of vampiric immunisation.

 

 

Try explaining that at work tomorrow. "

[Kaftan Barlast]

First of all, there is no reliable scientific proof that violent videogames encourages violence in those who play them. Except for children of low ages(up to 7-8yearolds) that have not yet fully developed their empathical abilities, they will go beat up other kids etc because they cant understand that it hurts them. It is the parents, and only the parents, duty to ensure that an impressionable kid is kept away from violent entertainment.

 

 

In all other cases, anything that is appropriate for the game world goes. If domestic violence, prostitution or anything else can make interesting contributions to the game, it should be there. The devs shouldnt go out of their way to make it possible to murder children but if you, like in Fallout, can kill/steal from/etc. everyone, then that must include child NPC's.

 

And innocent bystanders getting hit by stray bullets is something that happens every day, I think its very good that this is included in Fallout because it forces you to check your fire. Its tragic when it happens but any good drama contains a bit of tragedy.

[Gorth]

After years of playing the UK version of Fallout 2 I got my hand on the "full" US version, it felt undescribable, finally getting those little thieves *on* the screen in The Den. Payback time... me and my flamethrower cleaned out those little pickpockets while reciting a long list of grievances over items disappearing mysteriously

[mkreku]

First of all, there is no reliable scientific proof that violent videogames encourages violence in those who play them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not entirely true. There's perhaps no research that shows a direct connection between violent computer games and real life violence, but there are several studies that show disturbed reaction patterns among kids who play Counterstrike excessively.

 

I couldn't find any links about it (right now), but I have read a report where they did experiments with war damaged children and young CS-players. Their responses to violence were almost exactly the same. If you shoot someone in the head all day long in a computer game, you're likely to respond less strongly if it ever happened in real life. Children who've seen that kind of violence up close will of course have very disturbed reactions to violent acts. One computer game in itself is never the reason why someone would go out and kill another human being (and noone ever claimed that) but violent computer games can slowly wear down normal behaviour and boundaries if given enough time.

 

I am not sure where I stand in this matter. As someone said, computer games could be the perfect media for showing the consequences of violence, but as it is now, some games use the violence as its selling point. The grosser, the better. Adults should, of course, be free to make their own choices so some kind of censorship is not what I'd suggest.. This would be so easy if only all parents were good parents. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, which is why we have something called a society to pick up the slack and protect those who need it the most. Gaah! Enough ranting.

 

I don't know! (that's my very scientific conclusion)

[kirottu]

Or does violent people play violent games?

[Kaftan Barlast]

I couldn't find any links about it (right now), but I have read a report where they did experiments with war damaged children and young CS-players. Their responses to violence were almost exactly the same. If you shoot someone in the head all day long in a computer game, you're likely to respond less strongly if it ever happened in real life. Children who've seen that kind of violence up close will of course have very disturbed reactions to violent acts.   

 

.....violent computer games can slowly wear down normal behaviour and boundaries if given enough time.

 

 

I read research by Margareta R

[Volourn]

Everything should be up for games. No mercy for the wicked! if people cna't tell the difference beteen game violence and real violence; they're insane and belong in an insane asylum. Games don't make murderers. I bet most people who start killing after playing a certain game have various other problems in their life like drugs, non existent parents, bullies at school, or some other psychological illness. Once again, games do not create murderers nor does it encourage murderers. Hell, GTA sells millions of copies and 99.999999999% of those who play it aren't goinga round murdering others,a nd those who do have bigger problems than a silly game.

 

No subject should be taboo in game. No subject all. As long as it fits the game. ie. I don't think you shoud be allowed to rape ina Mario game. That is just silly.

[draakh_kimera]

As I see it, the problem isn't what can be done in a game, but the fact that it is almost always in some way glorified. I don't have a problem with "taboo" subjects in games, it's just that when a game has a story or objective as an excuse to portray violence, like Postal, GTA, most FPS's, I think it's questionable.

[metadigital]

.. So, we often undererestimate childrens abilities to differentiate between reality and fiction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this is the point I was trying to make at 4.30 this morning (in a not-very-eloquent way).

 

Children are quite astute, they know that Wile E Coyote can die seventy time in a Road Runner catoon hour, and yet the murder of a single girl on the tv news will give them nightmares (and righly so). It is political-correctness parentalism gone mad to start legislating against imaginary violence.

 

That said, violence is (unfortnately) an integral part of our lives, and how we cope with it is a very important (and even defining) characteristic of our existence. So ity makes sense that it is a theme to be managed in a virtual world.

 

To decry imaginary violence as a catalyst for RL violence is lazy, illogical and just bad science. (There was a case in the UK recently where it was claimed that the assault of a young boy by another coincidentally had the attacker with a copy of Manhunt. In actual fact, it was the victim who owned the game. The latter correction was not reported by the tabloid that broke the original rumour.)

 

To propse that shooting a person even remotely resembles clicking a mouse is ludicrous. In a game the target is a green monster.

 

There are much stronger statistical correlations to more mundane yet much more tragic causes for the violence in our society, like violence to children begets violent adults, in a vicious circle.

 

Poll the inmates at Her Majesty's Pleasure, and you will find very few who were desensitized by video games and most who were beaten as children.

[213374U]

if people cna't tell the difference beteen game violence and real violence; they're insane and belong in an insane asylum.

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.

[Volourn]

No. No. No. There is no real connection between the two. Games don't cause people to commit violence. Period. This is undisputable.

[metadigital]

if people cna't tell the difference beteen game violence and real violence; they're insane and belong in an insane asylum.

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. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I would argue that's all supposition. At the turn of the century the most popular film was simply a train shot from front on hurtling at the audience. That's it. People in the audience would jump out of their seats to avoid what they thought was certain collision with the train their eyes told them was about to hit them.

 

People didn't think that it was okay to stand in front of a steam locomotive and emulate the experience in RL. None.

 

After a while, the audiences became savvy to this, and now we have CGI to try to make dynosaurs real and such in an ever-increasing gradient to mimick reality. It doesn't change the fact that one is real and one is not, however convincing we try to make it. Maybe one day we'll have a direct transfer of emotion to the cortex, or some equivalent, and maybe then it might start to get difficult to tell reality from virtuality. Not yet. Not by us, and not by children.

And no, Volo. Not everyone that is not completely stable should be locked up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be pretty lonely out here.