should you be able to do anything in a crpg?

[metadigital]

I thought this would be relevant:

Debate over Video Game Violence

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the link. What is clear is that Jack Thompson presents a poor case for rationality. He is portraying the extremist a little too well. His main complaint is that the ESRB is a rating label and not a warning label. Fine, fix the system and make the perpetrators rue their infringement. It's not like there aren't PUNITIVE DAMAGES in the US! He also degenerates into argumentum ad hominem and scare tactics, making an unflattering comparison between Doug Lowenstein and Saddam Hussein (I have very little time for people who conduct arguments like this and I see he was at least careful not to compare a man with a Jewish name to Hitler) and trying to whip up an emotional frenzy with warnings linking video game violence with Columbine. This is the worst sort of tabloid sensationalism, imo.

 

On the other hand Henry Jenkins is arguing for more education and responsibility from parents, without which all initiatives are bound for failure.

 

I know who's argument I am more likely to give heed to, regardless of my opinion.

[Volourn]

Let's blame the entertainment; but let's not blame the real culprit - people. People kill. Games do not. Guns may shoot bullets; but it's the people who pull the trigger. A bad may be used to bash someone's brains in; but it's a perosn who swings the bat.

 

People. People. People.

 

Let's ban people. That way, there won't be any unneccsary violence.

 

People. People. People.

 

I think it's hilarious that a game like Doom cna be played by like 3 million people (or whatever), and maybe a few hundred of those players are violent thugs, and do things like drugs, have emotion, social, or familail problems that have nothing tod o with games yet they point their fingers at games.

 

Hahahaha.

 

 

It's like if I watched a 6 o'clock news shows that showed some violent crime, and a bout an hour later I commit a crime; the news show will blamed 'cause it obviously made me commit the crime. But, oh, they forgot to point out I was a druggy who was desperate for cash so I thugged the cash from some poor soul. Uhuh now.

 

 

[213374U]

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.

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?

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

[213374U]

Let's blame the entertainment; but let's not blame the real culprit - people. People kill. Games do not. Guns may shoot bullets; but it's the people who pull the trigger. A bad may be used to bash someone's brains in; but it's a perosn who swings the bat.

 

People. People. People.

 

Let's ban people. That way, there won't be any unneccsary violence.

 

People. People. People.

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!

 

 

   

[Volourn]

I agree.

[metadigital]

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.

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on the controlling mechanism and your definition of violence. It would be a very worthy game that made all the characters speak with utmost respect to each NPC; no scattological references or inappropriate language; no overt or implied verbal or physical violence. But would that really prevent a violent society? I put it to you that violence predates the video game industry by several millennia (at least), and there didn't seem to be a lack of violence -- even in Victorian society where prudish attitudes to manners reached a zenith. In fact, the Victorians were arguably the equal to the most violent conquerors in history. So I diagree with your stated conclusion.

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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By your argument you could advocate banning cola drinks. They serve no purpose except to make a few corporate executives rich and oil the wheels of capitalism. Except Coca Cola, for one example, pours billions of dollars into sports sponsorship worldwide, which would help countless young people out of poverty. (Liberals are always saying that the cost of saving just one life is immaterial.)

What does the game industry do? Well, for a nascent industry -- less than a quarter of a century old -- it has already given quite a lot back to society, but I would bet London bridge to a brick that it will give more. Don't forget that innovations from the gaming industry are used throughout society; who knows if one day we might be able to limit to very few actual sex workers, for example, where most of the interactions are with virtual models that are indestinguishable from RL? This would help take away the demand for sex work: the number one cause for so much misery in our world. (Fact: so many people are trapped in sex work because the demand is so high.) You can't get results like that without realism in games now.

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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It already exists, but the problem with self censorship is that it is not reliable; it is not regulated and it is not consistent. What is acceptable to one developer is not the same as another: the developers of the JFK game, or Manhunt, obviously have a different threshold than most. By making legislation, it can be agreed by society and consistently applied (and contested in court, as necessary), rather than some magic "black box".

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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can answer the question; I have quite a rich imagination. Are you suggesting that under no circumstance there is any way that shooting a child is justified? Have you heard of the new game F.E.A.R.? I suppose you aren't familiar that 10% of rape in society is against men. Rape is not a sex crime, it is a crime of power: the exercise of one person's power (usually a disposessed or powerless individual) over another. I can think of many instances where this may be appropriate. Did you see Pulp Fiction? Did you like it? Many, many people did. Do you think it would be a better film without the rape scene?

[metadigital]

November 29, 2003. A rabid MMOG fan, known simply as Mr Jin, walks into a 24-hour internet caf

[213374U]

Depends on the controlling mechanism and your definition of violence. It would be a very worthy game that made all the characters speak with utmost respect to each NPC; no scattological references or inappropriate language; no overt or implied verbal or physical violence. But would that really prevent a violent society? I put it to you that violence predates the video game industry by several millennia (at least), and there didn't seem to be a lack of violence -- even in Victorian society where prudish attitudes to manners reached a zenith. In fact, the Victorians were arguably the equal to the most violent conquerors in history. So I diagree with your stated conclusion.

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.

 

 

By your argument you could advocate banning cola drinks. They serve no purpose except to make a few corporate executives rich and oil the wheels of capitalism. Except Coca Cola, for one example, pours billions of dollars into sports sponsorship worldwide, which would help countless young people out of poverty. (Liberals are always saying that the cost of saving just one life is immaterial.)

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?

 

 

What does the game industry do? Well, for a nascent industry -- less than a quarter of a century old -- it has already given quite a lot back to society, but I would bet London bridge to a brick that it will give more. Don't forget that innovations from the gaming industry are used throughout society; who knows if one day we might be able to limit to very few actual sex workers, for example, where most of the interactions are with virtual models that are indestinguishable from RL? This would help take away the demand for sex work: the number one cause for so much misery in our world. (Fact: so many people are trapped in sex work because the demand is so high.) You can't get results like that without realism in games now.

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.

 

 

It already exists, but the problem with self censorship is that it is not reliable; it is not regulated and it is not consistent. What is acceptable to one developer is not the same as another: the developers of the JFK game, or Manhunt, obviously have a different threshold than most. By making legislation, it can be agreed by society and consistently applied (and contested in court, as necessary), rather than some magic "black box".

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.

 

 

I can answer the question; I have quite a rich imagination. Are you suggesting that under no circumstance there is any way that shooting a child is justified? Have you heard of the new game F.E.A.R.? I suppose you aren't familiar that 10% of rape in society is against men. Rape is not a sex crime, it is a crime of power: the exercise of one person's power (usually a disposessed or powerless individual) over another. I can think of many instances where this may be appropriate. Did you see Pulp Fiction? Did you like it? Many, many people did. Do you think it would be a better film without the rape scene?

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.

[metadigital]

Depends on the controlling mechanism and your definition of violence. It would be a very worthy game that made all the characters speak with utmost respect to each NPC; no scattological references or inappropriate language; no overt or implied verbal or physical violence. But would that really prevent a violent society? I put it to you that violence predates the video game industry by several millennia (at least), and there didn't seem to be a lack of violence -- even in Victorian society where prudish attitudes to manners reached a zenith. In fact, the Victorians were arguably the equal to the most violent conquerors in history. So I diagree with your stated conclusion.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was not trying to suppress human nature, I was pointing out the ludicrous proposition that you are propounding: removing violence from video games will prevent violence in society, the same violence that was present before video games were invented!

 

To illustrate this, I was being sarcastic with the "worthy" comment. A "worthy" game is meant to be a curse: sure it would be a worthy cause -- but No, no-one would play it if it sacrificed portraying reality in a real way. It would be like making a game where chess pieces politely talk to each other on the chess board and trying to sell it to draughts players. Nice, "worthy" but altogether irrelevant: because it places the sanitization of reality above the enjopyment of the game.

By your argument you could advocate banning cola drinks. They serve no purpose except to make a few corporate executives rich and oil the wheels of capitalism. Except Coca Cola, for one example, pours billions of dollars into sports sponsorship worldwide, which would help countless young people out of poverty. (Liberals are always saying that the cost of saving just one life is immaterial.)

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am trying to dislodge your unrealistic adherence to a nonsensical ideology with rather extreme (not extremist) examples of why absolutes that may be well-meaning will just not work.

 

And it is just as likely that an unstable individual taking 1,3,7 Trimethyl xanthine as well as the large dose of sugar present in cola, is more likely to become unstable than simply sitting and twitching their mouse in front of a computer. Coke is more widely available than computers (over 75% of the world's population have never made a telephone call), and excess sugar in the diet is a known and proven cause of ADHD and Type II Diabetes. So there is more imperative to ban cola -- which has few intrinsic redeeming values, per se. Risk management. This demonstrates the same hysterical arguments in a different zone of affect.

What does the game industry do? Well, for a nascent industry -- less than a quarter of a century old -- it has already given quite a lot back to society, but I would bet London bridge to a brick that it will give more. Don't forget that innovations from the gaming industry are used throughout society; who knows if one day we might be able to limit to very few actual sex workers, for example, where most of the interactions are with virtual models that are indestinguishable from RL? This would help take away the demand for sex work: the number one cause for so much misery in our world. (Fact: so many people are trapped in sex work because the demand is so high.) You can't get results like that without realism in games now.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sex is another example that has been brought up previously. Since you readily accept that the realistic portrayal of sexual acts in a video game are okay, then I wonder how far this extends. Is just the missionary position between married people acceptable, or are we permited to break societal norms and aspirations with sex, but not violence? Bondage? Micturation? Rape? Oops, we're into violence.

I can imagine a world where conflict is solved with online combat rather than war. Sure that's far-fetched, but it is close in societies like South Korea, where the lines between virtual and real life are already blurring: In 2003, a group of thugs burst into a Seoul [PC arcade] and proceeded to kick seven shades out of a man who killed one of their characters in [Lineage].

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's important to identify the "at risk" population. At the moment since no one knows that games are "harmful" then legislation must suffice.

 

Kind of reminds me of tobaco advertising. At one time it was cool and no one thought anything of it. Now you have those big warning emblazoned across the packets.

 

MMPORGs really should carry a similiar warning , they are dangerous. But because they are also new, its going to take a while for the research to catch up.

 

Problem with games as opposed to RPGs. In RPGs the exposure time is far longer. A violent RPG would be like sitting through 20 slasher flicks and knowing some peoples gaming habbits, it wouldnt be spread out over weeks either.

 

Rockstars latest Bully is an example of a game that you have to be concered about. While it could under supervision prove useful, it could also be the catalyst for some really nasty repercutions. Given the spate of suicides related to Bullying recently, not expecting to see the game over here. However it's also Rockstars marketing strategy to capitalise on the negative press.

[metadigital]

It's important to identify the "at risk" population. At the moment since no one knows that games are "harmful" then legislation must suffice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Legislation is the only way to deal with this. A game that deals with mature themes must be restricted to a mature audience. The mechanism needs to be functional; if it is not, then it is the mechanism at fault, not the mature themes.

Kind of reminds me of tobaco advertising. At one time it was cool and no one thought anything of it. Now you have those big warning emblazoned across the packets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that cigarette smoking is harmful to everyone, even people who happen to be in the general vicinity when someone else is smoking. Unlike video games, which are not harmful to most people on any scale similar.

MMPORGs really should carry a similiar warning , they are dangerous. But because they are also new, its going to take a while for the research to catch up.

 

Problem with games as opposed to RPGs. In RPGs the exposure time is far longer. A violent RPG would be like sitting through 20 slasher flicks and knowing some peoples gaming habbits, it wouldnt be spread out over weeks either.

 

Rockstars latest Bully is an example of a game that you have to be concered about. While it could under supervision prove useful, it could also be the catalyst for some really nasty repercutions. Given the spate of suicides related to Bullying recently, not expecting to see the game over here. However it's also Rockstars marketing strategy to capitalise on the negative press.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think again the problem is not the MMORPG, but the people who need to be managed. It's okay to say MMORPGs are bad, but millions of people play them with no ill effects.

 

Alcohol consumption is a much more costly and has a more direct correlation with abuse, illness, disease and violence than video games can ever aspire to, and I don't hear anyone calling for another prohibition of alcohol.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Legislation is the only way to deal with this. A game that deals with mature themes must be restricted to a mature audience. The mechanism needs to be functional; if it is not, then it is the mechanism at fault, not the mature themes.

 

Except that cigarette smoking is harmful to everyone, even people who happen to be in the general vicinity when someone else is smoking. Unlike video games, which are not harmful to most people on any scale similar.

 

I think again the problem is not the MMORPG, but the people who need to be managed. It's okay to say MMORPGs are bad, but millions of people play them with no ill effects.

 

Alcohol consumption is a much more costly and has a more direct correlation with abuse, illness, disease and violence than video games can ever aspire to, and I don't hear anyone calling for another prohibition of alcohol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or you could just not make them in the first place. I still havnt heard anything compelling on why games should go into such graphic depictions.

 

While that is certainly true it's taken 50+ years to reach these conclusions and "passive smoking" is something that has only recently come to light (in research terms which tend to make a snail look speedy).

 

Still no reason not to plaster a very large warning label across the front of it.

 

It's also something that is constantly under review and measures are always being taken. There is no reason that games should not be treated in the same way.

 

It's much more sensible to stop the problem before it starts than try to correct it only when it's reached endemic levels.

[213374U]

I was not trying to suppress human nature, I was pointing out the ludicrous proposition that you are propounding: removing violence from video games will prevent violence in society, the same violence that was present before video games were invented!

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.

 

 

I am trying to dislodge your unrealistic adherence to a nonsensical ideology with rather extreme (not extremist) examples of why absolutes that may be well-meaning will just not work.

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.

 

 

And it is just as likely that an unstable individual taking 1,3,7 Trimethyl xanthine as well as the large dose of sugar present in cola, is more likely to become unstable than simply sitting and twitching their mouse in front of a computer. Coke is more widely available than computers (over 75% of the world's population have never made a telephone call), and excess sugar in the diet is a known and proven cause of ADHD and Type II Diabetes. So there is more imperative to ban cola -- which has few intrinsic redeeming values, per se. Risk management. This demonstrates the same hysterical arguments in a different zone of affect.

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 is another example that has been brought up previously. Since you readily accept that the realistic portrayal of sexual acts in a video game are okay, then I wonder how far this extends. Is just the missionary position between married people acceptable, or are we permited to break societal norms and aspirations with sex, but not violence? Bondage? Micturation? Rape? Oops, we're into violence.

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.

 

 

I can imagine a world where conflict is solved with online combat rather than war. Sure that's far-fetched, but it is close in societies like South Korea, where the lines between virtual and real life are already blurring: In 2003, a group of thugs burst into a Seoul [PC arcade] and proceeded to kick seven shades out of a man who killed one of their characters in [Lineage].

[213374U]

F.E.A.R. is a FPS due Q3 2005. Whilst little is known of the actual plot, what is known is the enemy takes the form of a little girl and has killed all the PC's fellow Special Forces comrades.

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

 

 

Pulp Fiction conatains a rape scene. If you haven't seen it, I won't spoil it for you.

I have seen it. But I just can't remember.

 

 

No-one is arguing that adding gratuitous violence is acceptable -- graphic rape scenes, p

[jaguars4ever]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not the Dragon Sabre!

[Darth Flatus]

That is gaming gone too far. what a loser to pay for a "virtual" sword.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That is gaming gone too far. what a loser to pay for a "virtual" sword.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why dont you check out Ebay and find out.

[Volourn]

People are forgetting that violence has been around for thousands of years. It's not a new phenomena so to blame games, movies, tv, or other forms of 'modern' entertainment is just plain silly.

 

And, SP, your cigarette comparison isn't even in the ball park since it's a lot easier to figure out how chemicals in a cigarette (or other substances) effect a person. EVERYONE who smokes is at higher risk of disease. Still, imo, people should lay of the anti smoking junk as well. This push to ban everything and anything under the sun is silly.

 

Let's ban rope - people might use it to hang themselves...

[213374U]

People are forgetting that violence has been around for thousands of years. It's not a new phenomena so to blame games, movies, tv, or other forms of 'modern' entertainment is just plain silly.

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?

 

 

Let's ban rope - people might use it to hang themselves...

Again, rope doesn't promote violence. And hanging yourself harms nobody else other than yourself.

 

This is too easy...

[Plano Skywalker]

should you be able to do anything in a crpg?

 

real question: should developers make games that allow for behavior that is outside of everyday, accepted norms?

 

answer: depends

 

If we are talking about Fallout, then I guess that answer is yes (although I doubt Fallout lets you do ANYTHING you could possibly image).

 

If we are talking about a Star Wars game, I would say "probably not".

 

It's all about knowing what product you are making and who your target audience is. It is also about being mindful of the fact that professional reviewers are not going to reward "pandering" to the lowest common denominator.

 

It is a business decision and there are many factors to be weighed. It is also an artistic/aesthetic decision.

[Volourn]

"Experts don't know for sure, nor do you."

 

Yes, I do. And, so do anyone who is half intelligent. s for repeating arguments, EVERYONE in this 13 page thread has repeated themselves.

 

 

 

"Again, rope doesn't promote violence. And hanging yourself harms nobody else other than yourself."

 

Promote? Sure, it does. Rope talks to people (the crazy people who'd kill themselves) and says to them use me to end your miserbale live. And, no, hanging yourself does harm yourself. It cna ahrm your family, and friends. In fact, it might lead a family member into hanging themselves out of grief over your death. Fool.

[213374U]

Yes, I do. And, so do anyone who is half intelligent a self-important bastard.

 

 

s for repeating arguments, EVERYONE in this 13 page thread has repeated themselves.

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

 

 

Promote? Sure, it does. Rope talks to people (the crazy people who'd kill themselves) and says to them use me to end your miserbale live.

You need help. Badly.

[Volourn]

"And, so do anyone who is half intelligent a self-important bastard."

 

:D

 

 

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

 

The only copy-pasting I have done in this thread is with others' quotes. You say I repeat myself yet I don't remember using the rope analogy ealrier in the thread... Hmm...

 

 

"You need help. Badly."

 

Ban the games. It's obviously the games' fault.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And, SP, your cigarette comparison isn't even in the ball park since it's a lot easier to figure out how chemicals in a cigarette (or other substances) effect a person. EVERYONE who smokes is at higher risk of disease. Still, imo, people should lay of the anti smoking junk as well. This push to ban everything and anything under the sun is silly.

 

Let's ban rope - people might use it to hang themselves...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

of course it's easier to work out that chemicals are harmful, which was rather the point of using that particular example. If it took 60+ years to work that out to the point where it was taken seriously how long do you think it will take for something less obvious like the effect of gaming on the human psyche.

 

Well if you want to be socially irresponsible thats your perogative. Things are not banned for fun, they are banned for a reason.

[Nartwak]

What if the reason is because it's fun?