should you be able to do anything in a crpg?

[Child of Flame]

I think all games need more rape and paedophilia. You know, for realism.

 

"

[Fionavar]

I think we all need to try to avoid the baiting of trolls ... not too subtle I hope

[Volourn]

"I think all games need more rape and paedophilia. You know, for realism."

 

No. The game's story and atmosphere comes first. I don't want no rape in my sports games, sorry...

[Kaftan Barlast]

I wouldnt say no to a bit of rape in sports games. After the games you could hide in the shower of the winning team, and then rape them when they go in, as a kind of vengeance.

 

 

Or if you played american football you could choose between dodge, tackle or rape.

 

 

 

There are tons of possibilities, I dont think we sould be so quick to rule it out.

[Volourn]

And, people say I'm a freak.... <_< :D "

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't want no rape in my sports games, sorry...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How about sports in my rape games? >_>

[Volourn]

Play some Japanese Hentai games. I;m sure they have a slection for your pleasure.. As for me; I'll pass.

[kirottu]

Play some Japanese Hentai games. I;m sure they have a slection for your pleasure.. As for me; I'll pass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, if you want be an evil bastard you most likely will have a rape scene in hentai game, if you choose it so.

[Darth Flatus]

there should be prison game... based on Oz.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Whats Oz? Not refering to Australia when it was being used as a prison colony are you?

[draakh_kimera]

there should be prison game... based on Oz.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only if you get the option to play as Abedisi "

[Kaftan Barlast]

Obsidian should swell up and become this giant CRPG publishers that would pay people like us to make all the weird RPGs

 

 

-Prison rpg

 

-College rpg(the sequl to MCA's highschool upcomming highschool game :D)

 

- 1933-45 Nazi rpg

 

- Victorian age rpg(dueling and loads of complex dialouge)

 

- An rpg set in.. the real world of today! With the char doing.. normal things

 

- An rpg set in Terry Gilliams "Brazil" world.

 

- A Transformers G1 rpg

 

- An rpg set in the world of ALiens.. except its not about aliens.

[Darth Flatus]

adebisi thats who i was thinking of when i suggested the game - man that dude was scary. It would be awesome and terrifying if a game incorporated his method of asserting dominance of the other prisoners. A way of recruiting members. Now that would a realistic game.

 

 

 

those seem like great ideas kaftan.

[Darque]

I think all games need more rape and paedophilia.  You know, for realism. 

 

"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think you should be bonked on the head. You know, for punishment.

 

[Child of Flame]

I think all games need more rape and paedophilia.  You know, for realism. 

 

"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think you should be bonked on the head. You know, for punishment.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Go ahead, I might enjoy it.

[Darque]

 

[Roger]

Would that be rape or pedophilia?

[Weiser_Cain]

Say would you rather be raped or murdered with a rusty knife for your slightly darker/cooler outfit?

Maybe we shouldn't draw too many parallels between what we do in games and real life.

[Roger]

That's a great idea -- players should be rewarded for enduring, not inflicting.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

A Shanghai court has given 41 year-old Qiu Chengwei a suspended death sentence for murdering a man following a row over a virtual weapon.

 

As we reported back in April, Qiu loaned Zhu Caoyuan, a fellow player of MMORPG Legend of Mir, his 'dragon sabre' for use in the game.

 

Zhu then sold the weapon to another gamer for 7200 yuan ($870). Police told Qiu they could not charge Zhu with any crime as there is nothing in Chinese law regarding ownership of virtual property.

 

Advertisement

Zhu died after Qiu visited his home and stabbed him in the chest. Qiu later turned himself in to police and pled guilty to "intentional injury".

 

The suspended death sentence is equivalent to a life prison term, with a possibility of parole in 15 years.

 

Zhu's parents have already announced their intention to appeal for a harsher sentence. His father, Zhu Huimin, said: "My son was only 26 when he died. He was sleeping when Qiu broke into his home. He was barely able to put his pants on before Qiu stabbed him.

 

"We want Qiu to die, and immediately," he added.

[Kaftan Barlast]

...the deceased last words were.

 

 

 

"OMFGZORZ!!! No TKing IRL, yu0 gfagg0t!!!0101010101"

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

This was on another message board.

 

Possibly should have put a chain mail vest on instead of

pants.

[metadigital]

The issue with violent/evil acts in video games is somewhat more complicated than a lot of people here seem to think.

 

Like it or not, believe it or not, we are affected by what we see.  People who play violent video games do tend to be more aggressive than those who do not (source.)  If you expose children to violent games they do tend to behave more violently on the playground.  The two days after a heavyweight prizefight in the United States there is a 9% great homocide rate, and after a reported suicide or suicide drama on TV more people actually take their lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anecdotes aside, even the "quoted source" is cautious about making wide generalisations based on few clinical results. I read the underlying study and I highlight some abstracts that I think shed some light on the issues. (These are from the underlying clinical report, that is summarised in the link. Just download the pdf to read it -- it's less than twenty pages.)

 

I do dispair at the sensationalist summary and first paragraph, which seems to fly in the face of the reasonable tone in the clincal report; statements like:

On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an

assault on Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, murdering

13 and wounding 23 before turning the guns on themselves.

Although it is impossible to know exactly what caused these teens

to attack their own classmates and teachers, a number of factors

probably were involved. One possible contributing factor is violent

video games. Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody,

shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S.

military to train soldiers to effectively kill. ...

Now my understanding (albeit second-hand and mainly from Bowling for Columbine -- but that was a polemic against the endemic violence in US culture, so I would expect the bias to be against violence, not for it) is that this tragedy was more based on the teenagers feeling of futility based on their town being a munitions factory, rather than other factors.

 

That said, let's press on:

Test1: 278 students (78 male, 149 female)

Test2: 210 students (104 male, 106 female) all from "a midwestern university"

... [page 778] ...

Most of the participants were traditional freshmen and sophomores.

The mean age was 18.5 years. The oldest participants were

two 25-year-olds and two 24-year-olds. Data from the video game

questionnaire provided information about their playing habits.

Overall, participants reported playing video games progressively

less from junior high school to college. Participants reported

playing video games an average of 5.45 hours per week while in

junior high school, 3.69 hours per week in early high school,

and 2.68 hours per week late in high school. Presently, the students

reported playing video games an average of 2.14 hours per week.

Of the 227 students surveyed, 207 (91%) reported that they

currently played video games. Of the 9% who do not play video

games, 18 students, or 90% of the non-video game players, were

women, Thus 88% of the female college students and 97% of the

male college students surveyed were video game players. Participants

were asked to list up to five favorite games. The mean

number of games listed was 4.03, Over 69% listed five games, the

maximum number allowed. ...

These results are based on about 200 (I'd bet psychology first and second year) students from one US midwestern (I'd guess Missouri) university. That's a pretty narrow diversity to be extrapolating on.

[page 779] ...

Another interesting finding to emerge from data shown

in Table 1 concerns GPA. Video game violence was negatively,

but not significantly, related to GPA (r = -.08), but time spent

playing video games in general was significantly and negatively

correlated (r = - .20) with GPA.

... [page 775] ...

RESEARCH ON VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE

Although much research has examined the effects of exposure to

movie and television violence (see Huesmann, 1994, for a review),

and although popular press commentaries about possible effects of

video games abound, the empirical literature on video game violence

is sparse (see Dill & Dill, 1998; Ernes, 1997).

There are less than half a dozen studies, over the last decade, quoted on the effects of violence from video sources (games and films).

 

Video Games and Aggression: Correlational Work

Four correlational studies have examined the relation between

video game playing habits and real-world aggressive behavior.

Across the four studies, the ages of participants ranged from 4th

graders to 12th graders. Measures of aggression included self,

teacher, and peer reports. Three of the studies (Dominick, 1984;

Fling et al., 1992; Lin & Lepper, 1987) yielded reliable positive

correlations between video game playing and aggression. The

fourth (Van Schie & Wiegman, 1997) correlation did not differ

from zero. But, none of the studies distinguished between violent

and nonviolent video games. Thus, none test the hypothesis that

violent video games are uniquely associated with increased

aggression.

 

Video Games and Aggression: Experimental Work

The extant experimental studies of video games and aggression

have yielded weak evidence also. Four studies found at least some

support for the hypothesis that violent video game content can

increase aggression (Cooper & Mackie, 1986; Irwin & Gross,

1995; Schutte, Malouff, Post-Gorden, & Rodasta, 1988; Silvern &

Williamson, 1987). However, none of these studies can rule out the

possibility that key variables such as excitement, difficulty, or

enjoyment created the observed increase in aggression. In our

experience with video games and in the movie literature (Bushman,

1995), violent materials tend to be more exciting than nonviolent

materials, so the observed effects could have been the

result of higher excitement levels induced by the violent games.

Two additional experimental studies of violent video games and

aggression found no effect of violence (Graybill, Strawniak,

Hunter, & O'Leary, 1987; Winkel, Novak, & Hopson, 1987).

Interestingly, of the six video game studies reviewed here, only the

Graybill et al. (1987) study used games pretested and selected to be

similar on a number of dimensions (e.g., difficulty, excitement,

enjoyment). In sum, there is little experimental evidence that the

violent content of video games can increase aggression in the

immediate situation.

 

Video Games, Aggressive Affect, and Cognition [page 776]

Two studies have examined the effect of video game violence

on aggressive cognition. Calvert and Tan (1994) randomly assigned

male and female undergraduates to a condition in which

they either played or observed a violent virtual-reality game or to

a no-game control condition. Postgame aggressive thoughts were

assessed with a thought-listing procedure. Aggressive thoughts

were highest for violent game players. Although this supports our

GAAM view of video game effects, we hesitate to claim strong

support because it is possible that this effect resulted from the

greater excitement or arousal engendered by playing the game,

rather than the violent content of the game. More recently, Kirsh

(1998) showed that 3rd- and 4th-grade children assigned to play a

violent video game gave more hostile interpretations for a subsequent

ambiguous provocation story than did children assigned to

play a nonviolent game. This also supports GAAM.

Five experiments have investigated the effects of video game

violence on aggressive affect. One study showed increases in

aggressive affect after violent video game play (Ballard & Weist,

1996). Another (Anderson & Ford, 1986) yielded mixed results.

Three others (Nelson & Carlson, 1985; Scott, 1995; Calvert & Tan,

1994) showed little support for the hypothesis that short-term

exposure to violent video games increases hostile affect. There are

methodological shortcomings in many of these studies, which,

when combined with the mixed results, suggest that there is little

evidence that short-term exposure to violent video games increases

aggression-related affect.

 

To be clear, the clinicians of this test are saying that it is not clear whether aggression is increased from just playing any exciting game, like Tetris, and not just hostile ones.

That said - Doom 3 does not make its players into murderers.  While a fair percentage of murderers might play violent video games, only a tiny percentage of video game players are likewise muderers.  While the evidence indicates that video games increase aggression or agressive solutions to conflicts, there is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about aggression in our socities unless it is taken to very unusual extremes (ie: actual murder or assault).

 

The increase in aggression games provide is not inherently dangerous to its players or to society so long as it remains just that.  Naturally there are people who will commit murder and a fair portion of them will probably play violent games or even draw inspiration from them, but in the end it is the person that will commit the crime, and the other influences are their life that are at fault for their actions.  Millions of people can play video games without harmful effects - thus, it stands somewhat to reason that the people who commit crimes because of video games are doing so because they are the sort of people to commit crimes, not because the video game has warped their mind.

 

I am in full agreement with those who have posted that video games can promote or aggrivate aggressive behavior - but that conclusion should not, IMHO, provide an answer to the question originally posed.

 

There is no sense in going to the developers of a game complaining about an insane person injuring themself with the game as inspiration than there is in going to the manufacturer of a knife and complaining because somebody commited murder with the knife.  It is not the developer's responsibility of their products are misused, and neither they nor the general public should have to pay the price any more than any other artist.  Concepts like rape and murder should be included or not includeded based on gameplay and whether people would enjoy them, not some hypothetical insane individual that would injure themselves or others after seeing such occur in a video game.

 

In the end, the best we can ask the developers and publishers to do is to ensure that every individual is informed enough to make their own decisions about whether or not it is safe for them to play games.  For those individuals incapable of making their own decisions we can only hope that society will have means to prevent them from making harmful decisions, whether those means consist of good parenting, psychiatrists, or mental hospitals.  However, that burden falls on the shoulders of the government, and should not be brought to the game developer's door.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree with the spirit of your post; it is more important to provide a sensible and reasonable game environment, where cultural ethics are rewarded in accordance with our beliefs, rather than a more dystopian or nihilistic enviroment. For example, I would rather see a game where some sort of "Cosmic Karma" will build up and reward players with both good and evil ethics, even if this is a debatable concept in the real world.

[metadigital]

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.

[1]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.)

[2]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.

[3]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.

[4]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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No, the problem is the violence in society, not the people becoming desensitized to it. Desensitization is (just another) defence mechanism. We need to address the root causes of violence inherrent in modern society, not band-aid the symptoms.

2. This is commonly called throwing the baby out with the bath water. The point I made, which you inelegantly avoided, is that it is impossible to eliminate risk. You will have to manage risk in some way, and that means a risk-benefit calculation must be made, not a knee-jerk reaction. The risk posed by high-risk hostile individuals is small because there are very few of them; just as there are few mass murderers for whom the motor vehicle is their weapon of choice.

3. So you advocate self-censorship? The gamedevelopers are in a better position than a) the legislative assembly, b) the judicial heirarchy and c) the general public to decide what is permissable in society? Interesting pov.

4. Depends on the game; if you are asking my to construct a scenario where one or all of those options is a viable plot, then that is an exercise in cretive writing, not moral rationalisation. I'm sure if you pushed yourself you would be able to come up with a suitable answer to your own question, or are you suggesting censorship? You seem to be arguing both sides.

[213374U]

However, that burden falls on the shoulders of the government, and should not be brought to the game developer's door.

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.