should you be able to do anything in a crpg?

[metadigital]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is an interesting and worthy hypothesis, but I see no evidence to back it up. I see a lot of people trying to make hysterical connections between video violence and RL violence, but so far none have managed it. I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that -- depending on the viewer's psychology -- video violence can make the viewer more or less likely to commit a seriously violent attack.

 

Even in the previously quoted study, the "long term" effects were equated with "delinquency", not out and out violence. Mahatma Ghandi advocated social delinquency as a tactic to peacefully change the British government's attitude to India, and not many people regard him as a violent person.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet I don't hear you arguing to ban the drinking of alcohol excessively, and there is a clear and demonstrable link to societal violence and a multi-billion dollar cost associated with preventable diseases and even loss of productivity.

 

As I have been maintaining this argument is completely out of proportion; the fact that a few unstable people kill people and the unrelated fact that there now exist video games with violent content seems to be the lurid preoccupation. Why not manage the real problems, like the dispossed and root causes of misery in society, rather than fiddle while Rome burns by removing violence from video games that aren't even present in the lives of those who commit crimes?

 

It's just madness.

Any particular reason for your use of the chemical generic denomination of caffeine instead of its common name? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

...

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The good reason was it was late and I had just been playing DE:IW and I liked the link. (I'm sure it didn't take you long to google it's meaning.) It was also irrelevant to the point I was making, being that there are other more worthy targets for the nannies of our society to fret over. Caffeine and sugar in high doses can cause errors in judgement: I'll bet more people have caused accidents under the ifluence of excess caffeine and sugar than under the influence of violent video games.

 

But anyway, see my previous point, which explains that there is a demonstrable and proven cost to society from other areas -- that demand our attention more readily.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it between consenting adults? that's an assumption. What about a masochist? They delight in someone hurting them, should we portray that because it is between two consenting adults?

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].

[Llyranor]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is an interesting and worthy hypothesis, but I see no evidence to back it up. I see a lot of people trying to make hysterical connections between video violence and RL violence, but so far none have managed it. I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that -- depending on the viewer's psychology -- video violence can make the viewer more or less likely to commit a seriously violent attack.

 

Even in the previously quoted study, the "long term" effects were equated with "delinquency", not out and out violence. Mahatma Ghandi advocated social delinquency as a tactic to peacefully change the British government's attitude to India, and not many people regard him as a violent person.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet I don't hear you arguing to ban the drinking of alcohol excessively, and there is a clear and demonstrable link to societal violence and a multi-billion dollar cost associated with preventable diseases and even loss of productivity.

 

As I have been maintaining this argument is completely out of proportion; the fact that a few unstable people kill people and the unrelated fact that there now exist video games with violent content seems to be the lurid preoccupation. Why not manage the real problems, like the dispossed and root causes of misery in society, rather than fiddle while Rome burns by removing violence from video games that aren't even present in the lives of those who commit crimes?

 

It's just madness.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The good reason was it was late and I had just been playing DE:IW and I liked the link. (I'm sure it didn't take you long to google it's meaning.) It was also irrelevant to the point I was making, being that there are other more worthy targets for the nannies of our society to fret over. Caffeine and sugar in high doses can cause errors in judgement: I'll bet more people have caused accidents under the ifluence of excess caffeine and sugar than under the influence of violent video games.

 

But anyway, see my previous point, which explains that there is a demonstrable and proven cost to society from other areas -- that demand our attention more readily.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it between consenting adults? that's an assumption. What about a masochist? They delight in someone hurting them, should we portray that because it is between two consenting adults?

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].

[metadigital]

I have seen [Pulp Fiction]. But I just can't remember.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Check out the Pulp Fiction review.

His comment about the rape scene

[GhostofAnakin]

Nice quotes :D

 

EDIT: wait..... what the crap?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Too many quotes makes the Obsidian boards mess up the quote trees.

[metadigital]

Nice quotes :D

 

EDIT: wait..... what the crap?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As GoA said, I had exceeded the nested quote limit.

 

Fixed.

[213374U]

It is an interesting and worthy hypothesis, but I see no evidence to back it up. I see a lot of people trying to make hysterical connections between video violence and RL violence, but so far none have managed it. I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that -- depending on the viewer's psychology -- video violence can make the viewer more or less likely to commit a seriously violent attack.

Yeah, but there are studies that suggest that such connection might exist. It's nice of you to throw in some speculation of your own into the mix, but I doubt anyone versed enough in the matter would agree that being exposed to ultra violence would cause the exact opposite of what is being argued.

 

 

Even in the previously quoted study, the "long term" effects were equated with "delinquency", not out and out violence. Mahatma Ghandi advocated social delinquency as a tactic to peacefully change the British government's attitude to India, and not many people regard him as a violent person.

Ghandi was an exception, and delinquency wasn't understood the same way back then. You should know better than to try and twist the language in an attempt to confuse me. That is not to say that all delinquents are violent, but crime and violence are closely related.

 

 

And yet I don't hear you arguing to ban the drinking of alcohol excessively, and there is a clear and demonstrable link to societal violence and a multi-billion dollar cost associated with preventable diseases and even loss of productivity.

You don't hear me arguing about banning alcohol because this topic wasn't about it, to begin with. But it's a different matter, and alcohol was banned. It didn't work, because alcohol is cheap and easy to produce. Games are neither.

 

Next.

 

 

As I have been maintaining this argument is completely out of proportion; the fact that a few unstable people kill people and the unrelated fact that there now exist video games with violent content seems to be the lurid preoccupation. Why not manage the real problems, like the dispossed and root causes of misery in society, rather than fiddle while Rome burns by removing violence from video games that aren't even present in the lives of those who commit crimes?

Because that's out of the scope of any legislation. I'm sure you think that if you were elected president you'd solve world hunger in 12 days, but things are a bit more complicated than just "fixing the causes of misery". On the other hand, until we don't know for sure what kind of repercussions violent games may have on what sorts of people, controlling it would be the wise thing to do. And that is a very realistic action to take.

 

 

The good reason was it was late and I had just been playing DE:IW and I liked the link. (I'm sure it didn't take you long to google it's meaning.) It was also irrelevant to the point I was making, being that there are other more worthy targets for the nannies of our society to fret over. Caffeine and sugar in high doses can cause errors in judgement: I'll bet more people have caused accidents under the ifluence of excess caffeine and sugar than under the influence of violent video games.

Wrong. Caffeine doesn't affect your judgement. Sleep deprivation is usually behind those accidents.

 

 

Why is it between consenting adults? that's an assumption. What about a masochist? They delight in someone hurting them, should we portray that because it is between two consenting adults?

A masochist is a consenting adult. If not, it's rape, and it's a crime.

 

 

It makes more sense than banning violence. 

No, it doesn't.

 

 

Yes it is censorship. And completely unregulated, because there are no explicit regulations or guidelines. Just personal, emotive world-views. To clarify this for you: the existing situation is this self-regulated, self-censorship, underneath the overt ratings system; so if you don't like it you have just answered your own criticism. 

Do you really think so? You are even more deluded than I thought.

 

If marketing studies revealed that a game in which there was paedophilia could be a hit, and there wasn't a legislation that would ban it, you can be sure we would have it sooner or later.

[213374U]

And I don't see why I have to be painted as an extremist by you, when you are the one trying to ban everything that doesn't conform to your sensibilities.

Oh, of course. So why should murder be banned? Rape? Paedophilia? After all, it's only the majority banning random things that don't conform to their sensibilities. Those bigoted mobs...

 

 

I do know, however, that it is a very common female fantasy to be raped by a stranger. (Of course the whole event is only acceptable because it is not real. Under no circumstances would the fantasist desire to be actually raped IRL.)

Again, this falls into the category of "vague fantasies", much like conversation on mature themes, or violent literature. Those will never come anywhere near the realism of a video game, considering the rate at which it's being improved.

 

 

And since you seem to be unable to create a scene of rape, let me oblige: perhaps if your PC's close relation: wife / daughter / mother / father / little brother was raped in the plot of a game it would help escalate you to the emotional landscape necessary to conduct the plot.

Oh, that exists already. Or quite similar. But the PC doesn't actually carry those actions out (in case you have forgotten what the thread name is), and it's not depicted in an explicit way.

 

 

You're not familiar with the inter-species rape scene in Alien, either? Do you not understand that the alien creature is implanting it's offspring inside the human. So the entire point of the film seems to have left you standing, then. 

There was no intercourse that I know of in Alien. The sole idea is absurd. But hey, who am I to state the obvious and draw you out of your... personal... world?

 

 

No, I want to have a medium wherein I can experience the entire range of feelings -- just like films. With such a palette it is possible to paint things that are seemingly beyond your meagre imaginings. I hope you aren't complaining about lack of imagination in other threads elsewhere, because that would be hypocritical.

Not as hypocritical as your demanding of interactive, ultra realistic, immoral possibilities in your games "just for educational purposes".

 

Do I lack imagination? Perhaps. But at least I'm not a bored snob. )

 

 

You seem to have warped my pov into that of the necessity of displaying graphical violence. I have not said any such thing. I have maintained that no subjects should be banned, not "all images are okay, and especially the graphic ones". It is you who have turned my reasonable statement into a paraody for easy ridicule.

Re-read the topic title.

 

 

Are you a totalitarian lick-spittel?

Yes, I suppose I am a totalitarian, if by totalitarism you understand the idea that society must have rules if we are to survive and progress. And those rules must have mechanisms in order to be implemented and enforced. How proud I am to be a totalitarian.

 

 

You are arbitrarily deciding that all video games must adhere to some moral framework, and yet you have no reason to do so, that I have read so far, apart from a person distaste for anything other than flippancy in your games.

That, I am. But it's not only my personal taste. It's a matter of being in the safe side of a problem, and being consequent with something called moral minimums that supposedly any western citizen living in community possesses.

 

And forgive me for saying that if someone enjoys explicit rape or pedophilia in a game, he is a sick bastard.

 

I'm a totalitarian, after all.

 

Oh, I forgot to add that since governments are at least as totalitarian as I am, I don't think we will be seeing any of what you're asking for anytime soon. So the whole discussion is moot.

[metadigital]

[1]Yeah, but there are studies that suggest that such connection might exist. It's nice of you to throw in some speculation of your own into the mix, but I doubt anyone versed enough in the matter would agree that being exposed to ultra violence would cause the exact opposite of what is being argued.

And yet I don't hear you arguing to ban the drinking of alcohol excessively, and there is a clear and demonstrable link to societal violence and a multi-billion dollar cost associated with preventable diseases and even loss of productivity.

[2]You don't hear me arguing about banning alcohol because this topic wasn't about it, to begin with. But it's a different matter, and alcohol was banned. It didn't work, because alcohol is cheap and easy to produce. Games are neither.

As I have been maintaining this argument is completely out of proportion; the fact that a few unstable people kill people and the unrelated fact that there now exist video games with violent content seems to be the lurid preoccupation. Why not manage the real problems, like the dispossed and root causes of misery in society, rather than fiddle while Rome burns by removing violence from video games that aren't even present in the lives of those who commit crimes?

[3]Because that's out of the scope of any legislation. I'm sure you think that if you were elected president you'd solve world hunger in 12 days, but things are a bit more complicated than just "fixing the causes of misery". On the other hand, until we don't know for sure what kind of repercussions violent games may have on what sorts of people, controlling it would be the wise thing to do. And that is a very realistic action to take.

The good reason was it was late and I had just been playing DE:IW and I liked the link. (I'm sure it didn't take you long to google it's meaning.) It was also irrelevant to the point I was making, being that there are other more worthy targets for the nannies of our society to fret over. Caffeine and sugar in high doses can cause errors in judgement: I'll bet more people have caused accidents under the ifluence of excess caffeine and sugar than under the influence of violent video games.

[4]Wrong. Caffeine doesn't affect your judgement. Sleep deprivation is usually behind those accidents.

Why is it between consenting adults? that's an assumption. What about a masochist? They delight in someone hurting them, should we portray that because it is between two consenting adults?

[5]A masochist is a consenting adult. If not, it's rape, and it's a crime.

Yes it is censorship. And completely unregulated, because there are no explicit regulations or guidelines. Just personal, emotive world-views. To clarify this for you: the existing situation is this self-regulated, self-censorship, underneath the overt ratings system; so if you don't like it you have just answered your own criticism. 

Do you really think so? You are even more deluded than I thought.

 

[6]If marketing studies revealed that a game in which there was paedophilia could be a hit, and there wasn't a legislation that would ban it, you can be sure we would have it sooner or later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1 There is so little evidence that no-one in the scientific community is prepared to make any sort of prediction similar to the one you are trying to make.

 

And nothing counter-intuitve is every discovered in science, especially the soft sciences like psychology. [/sarcasm]

 

Actually I was using my own empirical experiences of violence; I would expect that all reasonable people, when confronted by extreme violence, would not be interested in creating more of it. I can also cite my father, an early volunteer and veteran of the European and Pacific theatres of WW2, who was not a violent man -- as indeed a study revealed of the D-Day soldiers after six weeks of constant fighting -- approx. 98% needed to be relieved or else face mental breakdowns. (The other 2%, assumedly, were enjoying the killing fields.)

 

2 No, I am suggesting that instead of chasing phatasms that might have -- at best -- a miniscule effect on society, it would be a more judicious use of resources to manage a proven catalyst to violence and a threat to social stability: alcohol. And I woudln't recommend prhibition, either. I would recommend a better management and educational policy, though.

 

3 That's right, I'm deluded because I suggest attacking the real issues rather than making small issues into big ones. Just because it is a big problem doesn't mean that if you ignore it it will go away. On the contrary, until we tackle the more difficult issues they will continue to be a growing threat.

 

4 Caffeine was just another example, like alcohol and tobacco. You are being argumentative, not persuassive. ADHD in children is caused by poor, high-sugar diets. Caffeine would not help this. Have you ever used caffeine to stay away for prolonged periods? I have, and I can tell you that one of the mental casualties is attention span. That must be a contributing factor for accidents. But, for simplicity, let's focus on alcohol as there is no doubt that it causes large problems in society and costs billions of dollars annually.

 

5 That is a violent act. Some might argue that the masochist is not of fit mind to make the decision. It was merely an example to point out that your neat pigeonholes have major limitations when discussing these issues.

 

6 Yes, I agree we would; and if people chose to buy it, then good for them. I doubt I'd be one of them. I don't have to buy a game just because everyone else does. And anyway, this was my point to you about how rediculous and unregulated self-censorship is!

 

If the society suddenly changed the laws of murder, then I would leave such a society and find one that I prefer, or live in isolation.

[metadigital]

And I don't see why I have to be painted as an extremist by you, when you are the one trying to ban everything that doesn't conform to your sensibilities.

[1]Oh, of course. So why should murder be banned? Rape? Paedophilia? After all, it's only the majority banning random things that don't conform to their sensibilities. Those bigoted mobs...

I do know, however, that it is a very common female fantasy to be raped by a stranger. (Of course the whole event is only acceptable because it is not real. Under no circumstances would the fantasist desire to be actually raped IRL.)

[2]Again, this falls into the category of "vague fantasies", much like conversation on mature themes, or violent literature. Those will never come anywhere near the realism of a video game, considering the rate at which it's being improved.

And since you seem to be unable to create a scene of rape, let me oblige: perhaps if your PC's close relation: wife / daughter / mother / father / little brother was raped in the plot of a game it would help escalate you to the emotional landscape necessary to conduct the plot.

[3]Oh, that exists already. Or quite similar. But the PC doesn't actually carry those actions out (in case you have forgotten what the thread name is), and it's not depicted in an explicit way.

You're not familiar with the inter-species rape scene in Alien, either? Do you not understand that the alien creature is implanting it's offspring inside the human. So the entire point of the film seems to have left you standing, then. 

[4]There was no intercourse that I know of in Alien. The sole idea is absurd. But hey, who am I to state the obvious and draw you out of your... personal... world?

No, I want to have a medium wherein I can experience the entire range of feelings -- just like films. With such a palette it is possible to paint things that are seemingly beyond your meagre imaginings. I hope you aren't complaining about lack of imagination in other threads elsewhere, because that would be hypocritical.

[5]Not as hypocritical as your demanding of interactive, ultra realistic, immoral possibilities in your games "just for educational purposes".

Do I lack imagination? Perhaps. But at least I'm not a bored snob. )

You seem to have warped my pov into that of the necessity of displaying graphical violence. I have not said any such thing. I have maintained that no subjects should be banned, not "all images are okay, and especially the graphic ones". It is you who have turned my reasonable statement into a paraody for easy ridicule.

[6]Re-read the topic title.

Are you a totalitarian lick-spittel?

[7]Yes, I suppose I am a totalitarian, if by totalitarism you understand the idea that society must have rules if we are to survive and progress. And those rules must have mechanisms in order to be implemented and enforced. How proud I am to be a totalitarian.

You are arbitrarily deciding that all video games must adhere to some moral framework, and yet you have no reason to do so, that I have read so far, apart from a person distaste for anything other than flippancy in your games.

[8]That, I am. But it's not only my personal taste. It's a matter of being in the safe side of a problem, and being consequent with something called moral minimums that supposedly any western citizen living in community possesses.

And forgive me for saying that if someone enjoys explicit rape or pedophilia in a game, he is a sick bastard.

I'm a totalitarian, after all.

[9]Oh, I forgot to add that since governments are at least as totalitarian as I am, I don't think we will be seeing any of what you're asking for anytime soon. So the whole discussion is moot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1 Well, state-sponsored murder is institutionalised at the highest level of government in the US, it's called capital punishment. And raping the enemy has, and unfortunately still is, a major strategic weapon in global conflicts: just witness the Rwanda and Balkan crises, to name two recent tragedies. I would not want to live in such a society, but some people have less choice. I am arguing to caution your ready accedence of hard-won rights for the individuals of society, to the society. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

2 Who is arguing for graphic depiction of mature themes? That is your own peculiar interpretation of the argument, adopted presumably to facilitate a straw man.

3 I am glad you are finally coming to your senses and agreeing with those of us who have been advocating the responsible freedom to express mature themes in any medium, and especially video games.

4 I see, so the "eggs" with the facehuggers were not implanting an offspring inside the human hosts? I wonder why Ridley Scott and Sigourney Weaver made the comment about interspecies rape in the DVD edition, then? Yep, it was just a scary monster film. ...

5 See my point three, above.

6 Ibidem

7 Interesting that you advocate a society that "must have rules if we are to survive and progress. And those rules must have mechanisms in order to be implemented and enforced." and yet you also advocate a regime of self-censorship. I find the two notions mutually exclusive.

8 Well, the safest option is to prevent all video violence completely, as it is an unknown quantity. And not just violence, as the GAAM model quoted in the article above states, it is quite likely that all excitement will have some effect in agressive behaviour (if the model is accurate), so we must dispense with all films that have any excitement in them. Are you advocating this as "a matter of being in the safe side of a problem" ?

9 Again, see my point three, above.

[213374U]

1 There is so little evidence that no-one in the scientific community is prepared to make any sort of prediction similar to the one you are trying to make.

You are still trying to imply that I'm making predictions. All I'm doing is stating that we don't know what the consequences may be. That includes you, with all your "there is little evidence to support it", and your convenient skepticism.

 

 

Actually I was using my own empirical experiences of violence; I would expect that all reasonable people, when confronted by extreme violence, would not be interested in creating more of it. I can also cite my father, an early volunteer and veteran of the European and Pacific theatres of WW2, who was not a violent man -- as indeed a study revealed of the D-Day soldiers after six weeks of constant fighting -- approx. 98% needed to be relieved or else face mental breakdowns. (The other 2%, assumedly, were enjoying the killing fields.)

Ah, yes. That's one of the advantages of arguing with someone that is an expert on everything. You always have some first (or at worst, second)-hand experience about nearly everything. Not bad for a croupier.

 

But at any rate, that is not a valid example. Not for this issue, anyway. It is not being argued what the effect of exposure to real violence is.

 

 

2 No, I am suggesting that instead of chasing phatasms that might have -- at best -- a miniscule effect on society, it would be a more judicious use of resources to manage a proven catalyst to violence and a threat to social stability: alcohol. And I woudln't recommend prhibition, either. I would recommend a better management and educational policy, though. 

At best? I assume you meant at worst. And how is alcohol a threat to social stability? Are you nuts? If anything, prohibition would be a threat to social stability. Not alcohol. There have always been people that make an abusive use of alcohol, and there will always be. There is no way to solve all the problems that drive people to use it.

 

 

3 That's right, I'm deluded because I suggest attacking the real issues rather than making small issues into big ones.  Just because it is a big problem doesn't mean that if you ignore it it will go away. On the contrary, until we tackle the more difficult issues they will continue to be a growing threat.

No. You are deluded because you think that just by waving your magic wand you can instantly solve all the endemic problems that our society has. The road to solving big problems is paved with laws and policies meant to deal with small parts of those problems.

 

 

4 Caffeine was just another example, like alcohol and tobacco. You are being argumentative, not persuassive. ADHD in children is caused by poor, high-sugar diets. Caffeine would not help this. Have you ever used caffeine to stay away for prolonged periods? I have, and I can tell you that one of the mental casualties is attention span. That must be a contributing factor for accidents. But, for simplicity, let's focus on alcohol as there is no doubt that it causes large problems in society and costs billions of dollars annually.

Of course I'm being argumentative. There is no point in presenting a convincing case when all you're doing is put up absurd examples that are so easy to debunk. It's your fault, not mine.

 

And as I said before, accidents and problems related to caffeine have more to do with sleep deprivation than caffeine itself. And as for alcohol, that simply doesn't have as easy a solution as violent games would.

 

 

5 That is a violent act. Some might argue that the masochist is not of fit mind to make the decision. It was merely an example to point out that your neat pigeonholes have major limitations when discussing these issues.

Great. So now you're surreptitiously putting down masochists as mentally unfit. How convenient for your discourse. Sorry, but they aren't. Since that was the major pillar of your argument, without it, the argument crumbles. It's still between two (or more) consenting adults, and as such, it's perfectly fine.

 

 

6 Yes, I agree we would; and if people chose to buy it, then good for them. I doubt I'd be one of them. I don't have to buy a game just because everyone else does. And anyway, this was my point to you about how rediculous and unregulated self-censorship is!

Huh? That was precisely an instance in which the lack of self-censorship would allow for the release of such a product, and would therefore need to be supplied by legislation. It's not a fault with self-censorship itself.

[213374U]

1 Well, state-sponsored murder is institutionalised at the highest level of government in the US, it's called capital punishment. And raping the enemy has, and unfortunately still is, a major strategic weapon in global conflicts: just witness the Rwanda and Balkan crises, to name two recent tragedies. I would not want to live in such a society, but some people have less choice. I am arguing to caution your ready accedence of hard-won rights for the individuals of society, to the society. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

You really have a knack for going off on a tangent. I have not advocated capital punishment. War crimes are still war crimes, and they are, according to military legislation, judged and punishment administered in courts-martial.

 

And as for tyranny of the majority, you are more than welcome to go live under a rock if you don't like it.

 

 

2 Who is arguing for graphic depiction of mature themes? That is your own peculiar interpretation of the argument, adopted presumably to facilitate a straw man.

No. The thread title is (since you have proven you are utterly unable to read and/or interpret) "Should you be able to do anything in a crpg?"

"You" as in the PC. If what you are suggesting that everytime that the PC were to engage in an immoral action the screen would fade to black, it's you who is setting up a straw man.

 

3 I am glad you are finally coming to your senses and agreeing with those of us who have been advocating the responsible freedom to express mature themes in any medium, and especially video games.

Again, that's not what's being argued. I have no problems with the driving plot of a game being the brutal murder and rape of your family, provided that it was not shown in an explicit way. But that would not be "you" doing it, as in "should you be able to do anything in a crpg?".

 

So, yeah.

 

 

4 I see, so the "eggs" with the facehuggers were not implanting an offspring inside the human hosts? I wonder why Ridley Scott and Sigourney Weaver made the comment about interspecies rape in the DVD edition, then?  Yep, it was just a scary monster film. ...

Right. I suppose you think viruses are rapists, too? Yeah, they attach their protein-based sexual organs to the walls of innocent bacteria, and then they proceed to fill them with their genetic material. Yes, just like those wasps that paralyze spiders in order to plant their eggs upon them in order to ensure their offspring's sustenance. FYI it's called parasitism, not rape.

 

How about you use your common sense instead of blindly swallowing the first result of a director's mental diarrhea? )

 

 

7 Interesting that you advocate a society that "must have rules if we are to survive and progress. And those rules must have mechanisms in order to be implemented and enforced." and yet you also advocate a regime of self-censorship. I find the two notions mutually exclusive.

In a perfect society, the need for laws would be marginal since every individual's moral convictions would be enough. But that is just a utopia. You keep conveniently ignoring what I said about all of that just being "wishful thinking". You see, unlike you, I have a grasp on reality.

 

 

8 Well, the safest option is to prevent all video violence completely, as it is an unknown quantity. And not just violence, as the GAAM model quoted in the article above states, it is quite likely that all excitement will have some effect in agressive behaviour (if the model is accurate), so we must dispense with all films that have any excitement in them. Are you advocating this as "a matter of being in the safe side of a problem" ?

No, it's not "quite likely". You are just putting forward your own interpretation of the study as the only valid one. It said that one of the possible causes was the excitement, but not necessarily the only one. And certainly people's sensitivity to violence isn't affected by playing Pac-Man.

 

As for the rest of the argument, well, you can keep trying to solve every problem with a stroke of your magic wand, or you may try to find gradual solutions to problems that are too big to take on all at once.

 

 

9 Again, see my point three, above. 

How does your point 3 relate to the fact that you won't be getting what you're asking for?

 

Fortunately, most people don't share your particular brand of moral relativism or your odd notions of mature content's potential as an educational tool.

[metadigital]

You really have a knack for going off on a tangent. I have not advocated capital punishment. War crimes are still war crimes, and they are, according to military legislation, judged and punishment administered in courts-martial.

 

And as for tyranny of the majority, you are more than welcome to go live under a rock if you don't like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, but I don't need your permission; owing to the vaguaries of fate, I was born to a non-disadvanted family in a country of means, so I am free to choose to live where-ever I wish.

No. The thread title is (since you have proven you are utterly unable to read and/or interpret) "Should you be able to do anything in a crpg?"

"You" as in the PC. If what you are suggesting that everytime that the PC were to engage in an immoral action the screen would fade to black, it's you who is setting up a straw man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that is your narrow interpretation of the thread title. I do not accept that we are limited to referring to the future perfect tense. I am defending the status quo, and even suggesting that any topics are permissable if handled in a mature fashion, for the discourse of mature audiences.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be of the opinion that there are some subjects that cannot be discussed by anyone. And you continue to try to paint me as some prurient pervert who seeks salacious thrills vicariously, seemingly in an attempt to make you opinion more viable.

Again, that's not what's being argued. I have no problems with the driving plot of a game being the brutal murder and rape of your family, provided that it was not shown in an explicit way. But that would not be "you" doing it, as in "should you be able to do anything in a crpg?".

 

So, yeah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is what's being argued. No one here, in all these pages, has suggested that the player should be able to witness some horrific scene. Only you have. I would have such as you speak categorised as "gratuitous" and therefore inadmissable.

Right. I suppose you think viruses are rapists, too? Yeah, they attach their protein-based sexual organs to the walls of innocent bacteria, and then they proceed to fill them with their genetic material. Yes, just like those wasps that paralyze spiders in order to plant their eggs upon them in order to ensure their offspring's sustenance. FYI it's called parasitism, not rape.

 

How about you use your common sense instead of blindly swallowing the first result of a director's mental diarrhea?  )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Metaphor not a strong suit for you, then?

 

You can take that explanation further, too. The male (in most cases) implants a parasitical life form inside the female. In fact, the battle for resources inside the females body during a pregnancy is quite informative: there is a real "cold war" between the f

[213374U]

Thanks, but I don't need your permission; owing to the vaguaries of fate, I was born to a non-disadvanted family in a country of means, so I am free to choose to live where-ever I wish. 

So what are you waiting for?

 

Oh, of course. It's better to stay and whine than beat it and leave the rest of us live in our beloved tyranny of the majority.

 

 

 

No, that is your narrow interpretation of the thread title. I do not accept that we are limited to referring to the future perfect tense. I am defending the status quo, and even suggesting that any topics are permissable if handled in a mature fashion, for the discourse of mature audiences.

My narrow interpretation? Sorry, but unlike you, I don't need to "interpret" everything. I just read.

That's what the thread is about. If you feel like derailing it to whatever you, in your detachment from reality, think it should be about, the least you could do is make a warning at the beginning of your post so the rest of us won't take it seriously.

 

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be of the opinion that there are some subjects that cannot be discussed by anyone. And you continue to try to paint me as some prurient pervert who seeks salacious thrills vicariously, seemingly in an attempt to make you opinion more viable.

You are welcome to find a quote by myself in which I claim that discussion about whichever topics shouldn't be allowed.

 

 

It is what's being argued. No one here, in all these pages, has suggested that the player should be able to witness some horrific scene. Only you have. I would have such as you speak categorised as "gratuitous" and therefore inadmissable.

No, not only was it argued that the player should be able to witness horrid scenes, but to actively participate in them, as the thread title clearly states. When the rush of whatever it is you are on passes, perhaps you will realize this.

 

 

Metaphor not a strong suit for you, then?

Right. So now it's a metaphor. Interesting that they would use a clear depiction of parasitism as a metaphor for rape that only you, RS and SW saw.

 

 

You can take that explanation further, too. The male (in most cases) implants a parasitical life form inside the female. In fact, the battle for resources inside the females body during a pregnancy is quite informative: there is a real "cold war" between the f

[metadigital]

Either your derangement or your deliberate misapprehension is difficult to contain, or both, but I shall soldier on. :D

So what are you waiting for?

 

Oh, of course. It's better to stay and whine than beat it and leave the rest of us live in our beloved tyranny of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all. As I keep maintaining -- and you keep ignoring -- I am defending the status quo and you are heralding some neo-puritanical regime. I am quite happy with the society, I just don't want extremists like you to start eroding my rights according to your own sensibilities.

My narrow interpretation? Sorry, but unlike you, I don't need to "interpret" everything. I just read.

That's what the thread is about. If you feel like derailing it to whatever you, in your detachment from reality, think it should be about, the least you could do is make a warning at the beginning of your post so the rest of us won't take it seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, this thread is about what is appropriate content for video games. I want there to be a limit based on relevance to story; you want there to be arbitrary limits based on your moral code.

You are welcome to find a quote by myself in which I claim that discussion about whichever topics shouldn't be allowed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If they are banned from popular media, then they are beyond public discussion. After video games, then film, and books, as well.

No, not only was it argued that the player should be able to witness horrid scenes, but to actively participate in them, as the thread title clearly states. When the rush of whatever it is you are on passes, perhaps you will realize this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why can't you argue about the topic, instead of painting me as someone with a fetish for violence? Actually, I dispise violence, but we are talking about the ability to portray mature subjects -- which includes uncomfortable and distasteful subjects, like violence. No-one has suggested that we need FMV of penetration, or any such wild imaginings of your febrile mind. If it is pertinent to the story, I am all for my PC character's arm being severed whilst I can see it in 6.8 million colours. If it is pertinent to the story, and handled in an adult manner, I see no difference with my PC being raped. As long as the maturity of the audience is sufficient, then I see no problem.

This just shows how far your knowledge of biology extends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it demonstrates your utterly shallow interpretation of events. Sure you can say that the Alien in the eponymous sexology is a parasite. That is true. But you will also notice that the offspring has inherited traits of the host (for a clear example, see the Alien

[213374U]

Not at all. As I keep maintaining -- and you keep ignoring -- I am defending the status quo and you are heralding some neo-puritanical regime. I am quite happy with the society, I just don't want extremists like you to start eroding my rights according to your own sensibilities.

Well, the present status quo doesn't allow for that kind of content in games. Paedophilia is illegal, as is rape. So it seems you are just contradicting yourself. And yes, I may be a neo-puritanical extremist in this respect, but so are the majority. Back to the tyranny of the majority that will not give you what you want. Sucks, don't it?

 

 

No, this thread is about what is appropriate content for video games. I want there to be a limit based on relevance to story; you want there to be arbitrary limits based on your moral code.

What part of the thread title you don't understand? The thread, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, or how much you try to derail it, is not about what content is acceptable in games' plots or as writing elements. It's about player choices.

 

 

If they are banned from popular media, then they are beyond public discussion. After video games, then film, and books, as well.

A random assumption lacking any real basis. Very consequent with the rest of your discourse. Sorry, but your attempt to associate my arguments with the rescission of freedom of speech has failed, as you have been unable to find anything in them that hints such a thing.

 

 

Why can't you argue about the topic, instead of painting me as someone with a fetish for violence? Actually, I dispise violence, but we are talking about the ability to portray mature subjects -- which includes uncomfortable and distasteful subjects, like violence. No-one has suggested that we need FMV of penetration, or any such wild imaginings of your febrile mind. If it is pertinent to the story, I am all for my PC character's arm being severed whilst I can see it in 6.8 million colours. If it is pertinent to the story, and handled in an adult manner, I see  no difference with my PC being raped. As long as the maturity of the  audience is sufficient, then I see no problem.

No, I don't think you have a fetish for violence. Neither have I implied so. But you are still dodging the issue, and arguing things other than this thread's topic.

 

And no. No amount of writing is excuse for an explicit 6.8M colour rape scene. No snuff games, please.

 

 

No, it demonstrates your utterly shallow interpretation of events. Sure you can say that the Alien in the eponymous sexology is a parasite. That is true. But you will also notice that the offspring has inherited traits of the host (for a clear example, see the Alien

[Fionavar]

Well that was indeed a fun and in-depth trolling/baiting banter - I'm sure there was also some connexion with the topic at hand But we'll just retire this thread to the AotS for future reflection ...

 

FLoSD.ObE