should you be able to do anything in a crpg?

[metadigital]

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.

"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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, I'm not going to argue that people will be desensitized by exposure to violence in games. But violence in games is still totally different to violence in RL. Clicking a muse button to stab someone in the eye with a shard of glass in slow-mo is one thing; smashing a mirror, picking up a hard, serrated piece of it and aiming it into someone's face with your own hand, by now cut and bleeding, is another.

 

I think the counter argument is more dangerous. Your arguments suggest that people with anger managment issues should be somehow restricted from excessive exposure to violence, and further, this will prevent them (for longer, presumably) from physically assaulting others.

 

I think it is a convoluted and inelegant way to deal with the issue of anger management.

 

People who have anger management issues should be dealt with, because even if violent video games are forbidden, then you must (naturally) forbid vioent films. And then we get to the issue of scale. How far do we go: banning violence in books? Maybe just for people with certified over-active imaginations and anger management issues?

 

I am being absurd on purpose to make the point that we should target issues directly: anger management is a problem; in no small way is the frustration of driving contributing to this, for example, but I don't see anyone trying to ban cars to address anger issues. (And cars are the most deadly weapon most widely available to the most people.)

 

To hide behind prohibition doesn't solve the core problem.

 

And it stops me from enjoying a game.

[metadigital]

One thing that's always confused me is how some people think it's 'better' for kids to be watching violence than sex. Why are some people (mostly americans, as far as I know) so concerned by letting kids see anything sexual in a game/movie (Disney used computer graphics to censor Lindsey Lohan's bouncing boobs in one of their latest movies!), but letting kids pull off headshots in the latest hyped FPS is no problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe that's because the US is trying to keep their teenage pregnancy rate below that of the UK.

 

Joke on curent affairs the other night:

"And the government has announced plans to keep seventeen and eighteen year olds in college by allocating funds for an allowance.

"This is ridiculous. What I want to know is:

"Who's going to be picking up the toddlers from daycare at 3pm with all the teenagers in college?"

 

[Darth Flatus]

arent the violent games usally rated? not that it helps much.

[213374U]

I'm curious; why is using extreme examples so common tactic for proving one's point when making arguments in threads? Seems very un-subtle. Almost brutish.

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.

 

 

I think the counter argument is more dangerous. Your arguments suggest that people with anger managment issues should be somehow restricted from excessive exposure to violence, and further, this will prevent them (for longer, presumably) from physically assaulting others.

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.

 

 

I am being absurd on purpose to make the point that we should target issues directly: anger management is a problem; in no small way is the frustration of driving contributing to this, for example, but I don't see anyone trying to ban cars to address anger issues. (And cars are the most deadly weapon most widely available to the most people.)

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.

 

 

To hide behind prohibition doesn't solve the core problem.

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.

 

 

And it stops me from enjoying a game.

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?

[Llyranor]

arent the violent games usally rated? not that it helps much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BY ZEUS, YOU'VE SOLVED THIS THREAD'S PROBLEM!

[Volourn]

"while violence in games, however fictional, is still violence."

 

No, it isn't. Violence is about hurting living creatures. No one actually gets hurt in a game ebcause it's all pixels. It's not real. To even try to claim that killing someone in game = killing someone in RL or is even close to it is silly. It's not violence; just like if your character has a girlfriend in game does not mean you have a girlfriend in RL.

 

 

"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?"

 

Uh... so how exactly does the ability to kill countless monsters, become the uber violent maker, or anything else you do boost your enjoyment of games?

 

It's real simple. It's all about about atmosphere. It's all about being a part of the game world. If I'm gonna get the option to play an evil bad ass in a game; and be allowed to kill whatever; why put some fake blockage on the evil character. Afterall, the evil character shouldn't have should forced morals in the game. That hurts the game, and saves no one in RL.

 

In essence, why do we play games anyways? That's your answer.

 

Bottom line is just because one kills, rapes, or murders in a game does not mean they are goingt o kill, rape, or murder in RL. There is absolutely no connection.

[Volourn]

I take everything back. You guys are 100% right. i found 100% proof that games make people kill...

 

Look below:

 

 

"The affidavits say the couple argued after she confronted him July 18. After Lori went to bed, Mark Hacking stayed up late playing video games for an hour. Then, sorting through his belongings, he found his rifle, went into the bedroom and shot his wife, according to investigators."

[Llyranor]

I don't get it. How is cold-blooded murder of an innocent grown man or mass genocide any LESS immoral than rape or pedophilia or murdering children?

 

Yet, at the same time, I'm inclined to tolerate the former more easily than the latter in games. Just seems like the way we've been conditioned, but that doesn't make the former any more justifiable in games than the latter. I can't fathom why the latter examples could be rationalized to be included in a game, and yet, I've killed many virtual people.

 

Why the double standard, then?

 

I'm not sure if simply hiding from all those taboos will make them go away, and yet the nature predisposition to defend oneself would tell me otherwise.

 

Ultimately, it all lies in HOW the topics are handled. Freaking maturely. And that is where most games fail, I fear. Adding a choice to be evil just for the sake of choice is pretty meh for me. Then again, maybe it's just because I can't see myself roleplaying a sick moron who takes pleasure from cutting people's limbs off and letting them rot but still live for as long as they can, all while slowly bleeding all their relatives and friends to death in front of them.

 

I don't see how having evil choices just for the sake of choices teaches you anything. 'Promoting' roleplaying my arse. If such a scenario was presented in a game, it would need to maturely deal with the biopsychosocial + legal sequelae of such an act. I can massacre whole towns in Morrowind, then pay someone some money and clear my name. That's not roleplaying. That's BS.

 

NWN's OC was drivel, but the Charwood sidequest was pretty good. Dealt with killing children, yep. It was handled in such a way that it was JUSTIFIED. I applaud Bioware for putting that quest in. I simply don't see how much more immersive it would have been if I had simply been the one killing those children 'for the sake of roleplaying'.

 

Maybe it's just my personal biases.

[213374U]

No, it isn't. Violence is about hurting living creatures. No one actually gets hurt in a game ebcause it's all pixels. It's not real.

Have you heard about verbal violence?

 

Oh, right. That doesn't fit into your radical interpretation of... everything.

 

 

To even try to claim that killing someone in game = killing someone in RL or is even close to it is silly.

So far nobody has stated that. So... yeah.

 

 

Uh... so how exactly does the ability to kill countless monsters, become the uber violent maker, or anything else you do boost your enjoyment of games?

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.

 

 

There is absolutely no connection.

Experts disagree. And since you are no expert, you auto-lose.

 

 

I take everything back. You guys are 100% right. i found 100% proof that games make people kill...

 

Look below:

 

 

"The affidavits say the couple argued after she confronted him July 18. After Lori went to bed, Mark Hacking stayed up late playing video games for an hour. Then, sorting through his belongings, he found his rifle, went into the bedroom and shot his wife, according to investigators."

[Volourn]

"Have you heard about verbal violence?"

 

Don't get me started on 'verbal' 'violence', jerkface.

 

 

"However, ultra violence and other stuff just for the sake of it will only substract from that enjoyment."

 

When did I ever say that I wanted 'ultra violence' just for the sake of it? Of course, the story comes first. My entire point is that if the violence fits the story than it should be included, and not be left out because of some fear that someone who plays a murderer in a game will become a murderer in RL.

 

Question: How many people who have played a rapist in TV, or movies have gone on to rape someone in RL? For some reason, I would say that number is extremely low, and those who did likely had much bigger problems than the role they played. And, since acting involves 'getting into your role' a lot more than a game does; you'd think they'd be at a higher risk...

 

 

"Experts disagree. And since you are no expert, you auto-lose."

 

LOL Experts can't even agree with each other so I'm not really worried if some expert disagrees with me. Earth experts likely cna't even agree with or not the world is flat or not so meh to them.

[213374U]

bah

[Nick_i_am]

Saying that video game violance causes real life vioance is like saying that the shooting of Fransis Ferdinand was the only cause of the start of World War 1.

 

It was a factor, like all things are a factor. On its own, nothing, but in the right situation it suddenly makes the situation deadly. Volo is right, someone who would kill because of a computer game is a loonie anyway, however, what if they didn't kill without the computer game? This is the real issue here, those in charge know that those with a firm grasp of reality arn't going to go on killing sprees, and frankly, the number of people who would, for the game *alone* is so small that it is almost worth not thinking about. However, it is combined factors that dont help.

 

Look at Soldier of fortune, you had a game over on killing US citizens, and yet, could massacer arabs at will, some people claimed this was because there was nothing in your mission that forbade killing arabs so it was okay for the game devs to allow this, but what kind of effect does it have when a game like this that (while it doesn't promote, but still *allows*) is realeased right after an incident like 9/11. Does it promote race hatred and an idea that 'arabs are scum and deserve to die' or is it somehow cathartic? It's all well and good saying that 'but people are intelligent' but actually they arn't, and if you were somone desperately trying to stop the spread of racial hatred in a time when your people are being patticually persicuted, does a game such as Soldier of Fortune, released at the wrong time do anything to help anyone? The only hope is that it does no harm. But on the other hand, games are entertainment, why should they even TRY to help anyone, if the game devs don't want to try and help people on some level through their medium then they have no reason to and all the goverment can do is try to stop them doing what they see as harm.

 

In this way, as with most laws, it's the actions of a few stupid people (in this case, devs who use 'touchy' material just because they can) who create restrictions to those who would use said touchy material in an actually productive way.

 

RANT OVER, BYE.

[zer"0"]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas ships for PC and X-box!!!

 

link: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050607/75428.html

[Darth Flatus]

does it state system requirements anywhere?

[213374U]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas ships for PC and X-box!!!

Boring.

[Zagor]

Well, Volourn....

As many people has said allready, the world isn't black and white. You yell for proof, but can you prove the opposite? I think not, because this is a matter that you can't prove in an easy way.

Of course very few people go out and kill someone exactly in the same way as in a game, using such examples is just a way to ridicule those who disagree with you.

Much more common, is that exposure to violence, in movies , games , tv, can have a longterm (this is hard for me to explain in english, hope you understand)increase of the tolerance to violence.

You may not even know how affected you are before you are in a situation where you could (or should, as in selfdefence) use violence.

 

Maybe you use violence, even if it could be avoided. Or maybe you use more violence than you needed to, if you for example continue to hit someone that attacked you, even after he has given up, lies unconsious or whatever.

Many people really don't know how they will react, before they are in that kind of situation, even though they think they know.

 

And no one becomes a rapist ONLY because of a game, but no one here has said so. But it can be one of many factors. There are no easy answers here.

[SteveThaiBinh]

There's a useful list of some fairly recent academic literature on the subject of video game violence and its effects on players:

 

http://www.game-culture.com/journals.html#vio

 

Unfortunately, the articles themselves aren't easily available, unless it's through a university. The 1998 Dill & Dill review of other articles was very interesting - they think that the balance is in favour of their being a link between video game violence and violent actions, but want more research (of course). The abstract gives a decent summary:

 

ABSTRACT. The popularity of video games, especially violent video games, has eached phenomenal proportions. The theoretical line of reasoning that hypothesizes a causal relationship between violent video-game play and aggression draws on the very large literature on media violence effects. Additionally, there are theoretical reasons to believe that video game effects should be stronger than movie or television violence effects. This paper outlines what is known about the relationship between violent video-game playing and aggression. The available literature on virtual reality effects on aggression is discussed as well. The preponderance of the evidence from the existing literature suggests that exposure to video-game violence increases aggressive behavior and other aggression-related phenomena. However, the paucity of empirical data, coupled with a variety of methodological problems and inconsistencies in these data, clearly demonstrate the need for additional research.

(Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd)

[Volourn]

"And no one becomes a rapist ONLY because of a game, but no one here has said so. But it can be one of many factors. There are no easy answers here."

 

Rape has been a human tradition for eons well before 'video games' were even within one's udnersatnding. To say games can even be even close to a determining factor in someone becoming a rapist is just plain old fashion ridiculousness.

 

 

It'll be like me saying because I ate a hamburger an hour before I killed someone; it was the hamburger that made me do it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Rape has been a human tradition for eons well before 'video games' were even within one's udnersatnding. To say games can even be even close to a determining factor in someone becoming a rapist is just plain old fashion ridiculousness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

applying modern morality to anceint times dosnt work.

 

No a hamburger isnt an element of socialisation. Although the advertising of the burger certainly is. If you doubt that, ask yourself why McDonalds have gone on a health kick recently.

[Volourn]

"No a hamburger isnt an element of socialisation."

 

Sure it is. Hamburgers motivate people to pig out, and get fat then die because of illnesses. Also, a lot more people have been murdered over food than video games. That's for darn sure.

 

HAMBURGERS = EVIL

 

BAN THEM!

 

Bottom line here is that video games don't turn people into murderers or rapists. Ppeople who murde ror rape have much mores eriosu problems than a silly fake video game.

 

That is all.

 

 

"applying modern morality to anceint times dosnt work."

 

Rape was *never* moral. Period. I don't care if it was more 'accpetable' in 1725 to rape little 10 year old girls. It wa sstill immoral. Period.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Sure it is. Hamburgers motivate people to pig out, and get fat then die because of illnesses. Also, a lot more people have been murdered over food than video games. That's for darn sure.

 

Rape was *never* moral. Period. I don't care if it was more 'accpetable' in 1725 to rape little 10 year old girls. It wa sstill immoral. Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats advertising not the hamburger.

 

Thats because you are using 20th C morality. Morality isnt a constant over time.

[Volourn]

I'm glad you approve of rape... as long as the rapist was born in 1624.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Way to miss the point, Volo-- oh... carry on, business as usual, nothing to see here.

[Zagor]

That's not what shadowpaladin meant, and you know it Vol.

[Volourn]

He said morality was relative. It is a known fact that rape was more acceptable back then than it is now. he says we cna't judge those of the past were their moral crimes because it wa s'ok' back then. I say that's wrong. Rape is wrong. It's wrong in 1600. It's wrong in 2005. And, it'll be wrong in 2500 (not that it'll matter since I'll be dead and unable to judge others, hehe).