mckmas8808 said:
I think the whole problem is that that little 17% of violent games make up more than 80% of total games sales.
Warren Spector critizes Rockstar with GTA Series
- Thread starter mckmas8808
- Start date
I think the whole problem is that that little 17% of violent games make up more than 80% of total games sales.
mckmas8808
Legend
london-boy said:I think the whole problem is that that little 17% of violent games make up more than 80% of total games sales.
If that's true then that's not R* problem now is it? Tell Myamoto and others to step their Mario Kart racing game up.
No seriously games like SOTC, the whole Jak series, Rachet and Clank series, all Mario games, and of course sports games like Madden have to sell more the 17% 'M' rated games. I think most of this too many volient game stuff is just made up by people that don't like games like that.
mckmas8808 said:If that's true then that's not R* problem now is it? Tell Myamoto and others to step their Mario Kart racing game up.
No seriously games like SOTC, the whole Jak series, Rachet and Clank series, all Mario games, and of course sports games like Madden have to sell more the 17% 'M' rated games. I think most of this too many volient game stuff is just made up by people that don't like games like that.
I'm not saying blame the games.
The problem is the people. They love the gangsta culture, so their music embraces it, their movies embrace it, now games embrace it.
This totally meaningless wave of violence for violence's sake is just wrong. The fact that there are now lots and lots of games about it is just a sign of people's demand of such material.
Videogames are instruments people use to enhance their fantasy. When their fantasy is sick, the games (or music or movies) become sick.
Taking out violent games, or music or movies, will have no effect until the people's minds are changed and don't "get off" on shooting someone, or watching it on a screen.
mckmas8808 said:If that's true then that's not R* problem now is it? Tell Myamoto and others to step their Mario Kart racing game up.
No seriously games like SOTC, the whole Jak series, Rachet and Clank series, all Mario games, and of course sports games like Madden have to sell more the 17% 'M' rated games. I think most of this too many volient game stuff is just made up by people that don't like games like that.
to clarify that statistic, 17% of games released in 2004 were rated "M". sales are a totaly different story. the top 2 games of 2004 were GTA:SA for the ps2 and Halo 2 for the xbox. the only other "M" rated title in the top 10 was Halo.
http://www.npdfunworld.com/funServlet?nextpage=pr_body.html&content_id=2076NPD said:
it's important to note that 2004 was an incredibly weak year for nintendo. i wonder how many versions of nintendogs will be on 2005's list.
dubyateeeff
Newcomer
This is written with humour. I actually likes his games so...
Doesnt sound like he played GTA, he would have gotten violent and beaten them up afterwards.
I guess Warren never made a violent game. If he would, he would just be a hypocrite.
Lets see... ah, he made Ultima Underworld (awesome game series btw)... which is kinda an "open fantasy world" where you can attack civilians or peaceful NPCs... just like in GTA... But that was so long ago, I guess he never made a violent game after that.
Warren should try applying for a job at Nintendo... It sounds like he is a Nintedo ****** anyway.
It is not about how real it looks, we have movies. We have TV-news. It is about the level of immersion. And if it feels like killing someone, people would automaticly stop playing that violent game (most of us anyway).
He should risk it and play GTA, then he will see what the action of killing someone is... He will realise almost no one is killed, just hurt so much that they pass out in a pool of blood till the ambulance men resucitates them. Or they disappear to save memory. And that the police will start pursuing you. Of course, since we cant have a game where someone is in jail for +20 years we get a fast forward of 6 hours, but hey, it is just a game.
The best thing about it is, GTA was designed for last gen. Next gen will be even more realistic... wonder what will happen then.
Doesnt sound like he played GTA, he would have gotten violent and beaten them up afterwards.
I guess Warren never made a violent game. If he would, he would just be a hypocrite.
Lets see... ah, he made Ultima Underworld (awesome game series btw)... which is kinda an "open fantasy world" where you can attack civilians or peaceful NPCs... just like in GTA... But that was so long ago, I guess he never made a violent game after that.
Warren should try applying for a job at Nintendo... It sounds like he is a Nintedo ****** anyway.
It is not about how real it looks, we have movies. We have TV-news. It is about the level of immersion. And if it feels like killing someone, people would automaticly stop playing that violent game (most of us anyway).
He should risk it and play GTA, then he will see what the action of killing someone is... He will realise almost no one is killed, just hurt so much that they pass out in a pool of blood till the ambulance men resucitates them. Or they disappear to save memory. And that the police will start pursuing you. Of course, since we cant have a game where someone is in jail for +20 years we get a fast forward of 6 hours, but hey, it is just a game.
The best thing about it is, GTA was designed for last gen. Next gen will be even more realistic... wonder what will happen then.
mckmas8808 said:
Well, Teen rated games are usually violent games as well. They just aren't graphic. I just think the gaming industry sells violence, for the most part. And it's usually the violent games that get the most money, the most advertising and the most attention. I play them too. I like them. But I can see how someone in the industry could be upset that the achievements of their medium is being overshadowed by debates about ratings etc.
mckmas8808
Legend
Scott_Arm said:
I understand Scott but honestly that's the way of the world. Movies, music, TV shows, etc. everything is being sold with violence or/sex to sell more and make more money. Videogames is just one of the many mediums that this is happening in. There is a strong balance in the videogame industry though. More balance than in movies anyway (not that its saying much
).Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue with you. Just having a friendly debate and I do realize that you also play some of these violent games that we are talking about too.
mckmas8808 said:I understand Scott but honestly that's the way of the world. Movies, music, TV shows, etc. everything is being sold with violence or/sex to sell more and make more money. Videogames is just one of the many mediums that this is happening in. There is a strong balance in the videogame industry though. More balance than in movies anyway (not that its saying much
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue with you. Just having a friendly debate and I do realize that you also play some of these violent games that we are talking about too.
THere is quite a bit of violence in tv and the movies. I think tv is actually more balanced than video games in offering alternatives to violence. And the way violence is portrayed is somewhat different. You don't see shows about people driving around in cards running people down for the hell of it. That's something you'd see at the movies
TV has a lot to offer other than violence, and games do as well, but to a lesser extent. It seems big budget titles are usually violent games. I'd think that movies were more on par with games, but there are a lot of high quality dramas, comedies that are not violent or that contain very little violence. There may be a lot of games that aren't violent, but if you're looking at high quality titles, there doesn't seem to be too many. I'd think of the three industries, video games pander to violence more than any of the others.mckmas8808
Legend
Scott_Arm said:THere is quite a bit of violence in tv and the movies. I think tv is actually more balanced than video games in offering alternatives to violence. And the way violence is portrayed is somewhat different. You don't see shows about people driving around in cards running people down for the hell of it. That's something you'd see at the movies
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. *shakes Scott's hand*
DuckThor Evil
Legend
[ultimate rant on]
I think people who criticise violent games, movies etc. have some difficulties separating facts and fiction, same goes to all you religious people out there. Are you happy now, see what you made me say!.
It's entertainment for crying out loud!, let those who enjoy it have their fun, and let your nosy hippocrat and censorship loving attitude only to quide your own lives and leave the rest out of it. I got better things to worry about than some flowerpower/over conservative a-hole trying to decide what I can or can't play.[ultimate rant off]
Anyways let's not censor things...
I think people who criticise violent games, movies etc. have some difficulties separating facts and fiction, same goes to all you religious people out there. Are you happy now, see what you made me say!.
It's entertainment for crying out loud!, let those who enjoy it have their fun, and let your nosy hippocrat and censorship loving attitude only to quide your own lives and leave the rest out of it. I got better things to worry about than some flowerpower/over conservative a-hole trying to decide what I can or can't play.[ultimate rant off]
Anyways let's not censor things...
mckmas8808
Legend
Dr Evil said:
HELL YEAH!! *jumps out of seat* oops
london-boy said:
OK, so I had the timing wrong. But then, Taxi Driver at the time was an "omg I can't believe what's in this" kind of film. The point still stands, I guess stuff accelerated more rapidly than I though. You see the marginal cases becoming mainstream, which creates new margins, which brings us to today. It's pretty hard to push the envelope sexually anymore without releasing blatant soft porn, and as far as violence goes, where else is there to go?
Reread his article. It's not just "violent games are bad." It's that the violence is becoming just about mindless visceral thrills. Few people are trying to make games that challenge you mentally or make you experience anything other than "that headshot was awesome."
To put it another way, there's too much Attack of the Giant Leeches and not enough Rebel Without a Cause.
Last edited by a moderator:
A post of length to rival Acerts!!
Regards turning people into psychos, I don’t think anyone of sense is saying playing violent games turns people violent, and sit someone in front of GTA and when they’re done they’ll go outside and smack people about. I think the main issues are
1) Does playing violent/anti-sociable/morally-questionable games have a negative effect on people?
2) Are there any limits as to what is okay when it comes to entertainment?
3) If yes to two, who or what should decide those limits?
Now number one has been talked of often, since back in the eighties I remember complaints against the likes of Barbarian. The same is asked of TV and movies too. This is something scientifically immeasurably – there are just too many other influences as to how broader behaviour outside the laboratory is effected. For those that do closed studies trying to compare behaviour in response to computer games without other external influences, for every one that finds a connection between violent games + behaviour, another study doesn’t. All inconclusive. What is needed is some case studies of populations. One might think that historical civilisations who didn’t have violent computer games would be an okay example – “There’s been murders and thuggery long before there were computer games†– but these had other circumstances that would have an affect on peoples behaviour. It’s not like computer games are the only possible cause for violent behaviour! I don’t think there’s any suitable case studies around computer games, but there are examples with other media. There’s a country, Bhutan or Bhopal or something beginning with B I think, that was without TV up until recently. It was ‘backward’, agrarian, and pretty peaceful. Very little violent crime. Then the decision was made to introduce cable TV, 40+ channels of typical Western material. The culture had a huge change, violent crime skyrocketed, murders became far more commonplace where before they were virtually unheard of, girls took to prostitution to pay for the consumer goods being advertised to them... This is the only example we have, AFAIK, of a population where the only change to their culture was the introduction of TV, and from that other changes occurred. Certainly the correlation is there and very apparent.
For me, I see plenty of empirical evidence for the negative side-effects of sex/drugs/violence/etc in media entertainment, though it’s probably impossible for anyone to research it and say for sure yea or nay. Question 1 might never get a conclusive answer, so we’re left with ‘violent games might cause violence, and then again they might not; we don’t know’
So question two. When the anti-gaming lobby makes its complaints, the gaming lobby tend to reply with ‘it’s not real. It’s only a game. I’m not really killing people.’ Is that really a valid argument? If it is, then anything at all is acceptable in games. As my prior example, if someone were to release a game where the intention was to abuse virtual children, would we have no problem with that? How’s about using new technologies, someone can take a photo of a kid on their phone, map it onto a virtual model, and play out their abuse of virtual models of real people? I don’t think anyone (of healthy mentality) would be okay with that. There’d be outrage, no? So why would such a game be unacceptable, when it’s not real and it’s just a computer game? I can’t see how logically, the ‘it’s not real’ argument works, because we know there’s situations where that definitely won’t apply, only no-one yet has thought to create such a piece of software. So why is pretending to beat people up with baseball bat okay but pretending to rape children isn’t? Who sets the standard and decides whether it’s crossed or not?
As Gubbi says, society decides the limits, which is where question three comes in. We don’t know if some computer games can have negative effects on people’s behaviour or not, but we’re certainly not going to let some types of software ever get released. This is going to be decided by society. However, society’s attitudes and tolerances change. I think, and imagine most of you here agree, that capturing people and throwing them into a circus to fight and die for the entertainment of others is wrong. Yet had I, or you, been born and raised in Rome, and from an early age my parents took my down the coliseum to see that, I’d probably have been okay with it. Likewise I have no desire to kill people I dislike and eat them, yet had I been raised on a island with that culture, it’s an activity I’d partake of without any qualms. I don’t go around beating up Jews as I think it’s wrong, but had I been raised in Nazi Germany maybe my opinions and actions would be different? Can society be trusted to choose right from wrong and ensure morally responsible behaviour? I don’t think would argue that works. People have done all sorts of atrocities on the grounds it was acceptable to their population, and many people have since looked back on that behaviour and regretted it. Society can choose values and encourage behaviour that is wrong. Looking to the future, I can be our contemporary culture and abhor the concept of a child-molester simulator, but if in a 100 years time society is okay with that, does it make it right? If you were to pop round a friend’s house today and see them boot up a game where he rapes kids, would be okay with him/her playing that game? Would you okay in 50 years time going round your own children’s house and seeing them playing such a game with you 10 year old grandson? For me, categorically no. And if society were to change to accept any such behaviour, or go back to beating down black folks or using human slaves, I wouldn’t accept society’s standard as a good measure of what’s right or wrong.
This question, who decides what is a fair limit to what’s acceptable, is like the first. It cannot be answered without a true definition of morality, a definition of right and wrong that people can agree to. Is there such a thing as right and wrong, or just the general trends and mores of contemporary culture?
Things are looking pretty inconclusive! Game might be harmless fun with no negative side effects, or an entertainment that has a negative impact on people’s behaviour. Perhaps we’ll never have any definite answers. Faced with a choice, to tolerate such games or do away with them, without definite answers how can we make the right choice? For me, logically, faced with unsure information it’s better to weigh up pro’s and con’s. We can consider the positive and negative benefits to the choices we can make. Eg. If we look at cars as an example, they’re responsible in lots of accidents. If we stopped using cars we’d prevent all those accidents, but at a loss to the convenience that automobiles bring. If we consider violent games are either :
a) Harmless fun, with no negative side effects
b) Entertainment that has a negative impact on people’s behaviour
And the choice to make is either
1) Keep violent computer games
2) Get rid of violent computer games
How would the different choice for 1 or 2 affect society?
In the case of 1b), if we keep the games we’ll be damaging society. For 2b) we get rid of the games and prevent that damage. In the case of 1a) we have an entertainment that we wouldn’t otherwise have, and in the case of 2a) we lose a entertainment.
So our choice really is, keep the games at an unknown risk of damaging society, or lose the games at a risk of losing harmless fun. Which do we prioritise? In the case of cars if we go without them we lose a lot of convenience, but if we go without GTA we lose a game, when there’s many alternatives that can be enjoyed in it’s place, no? We’ll still have our computer game entertainments covering all sorts of genres. We’ll have sports, FPS, RTS, fantasy RPGs. The only thing missing is games that simulate criminal culture. Is that something we can’t do without?
That’s how my reasoning goes. Where most arguments for and against seem to be subjective based on personal ideologies, I can see an logical justification for not allowing realistic violence against humanity etc. centred games. Unless someone can either convince me anything is permissible in computer games, which means convincing me a child molester game is acceptable (Dr Evil might be able to offer reasoning for these seeing as he/she is so dead set against censorship); or convince me that the differences between GTA and a such a child-molester game are decided by a fair party and that party can be trusted to make the right decisions, whether that party be a governmental institution, the games industry, or society itself, and that party’s moral judgements aren’t affected by contemporary fashions of conscience; or convince me there’s no such thing as morality and people should just be free to do whatever they want – I don’t see that not producing such games is a bad thing.
Of course it gets rather grey in some places. As Gubbi says, where do you draw the line and why? But I trust we all agree a line has to be drawn at some point. For myself I’ve played and do play ‘violent’ games, but fantastic and unrealistic. I think game intentions and implementations are where the lines need be drawn. I think it’s when the settings and actions become realistic and the enjoyment is found (for some if not for all that play the game) in the acts of barbarism or criminality. A WW2 combat game is okay as they are, but when you can realistically run in and slash up a soldier with repeated knife attacks and delight in his screams and gurgles from his blood-filled lungs, or buy you virtual corpse controller attachment that has a silicon rubber body and knife that simulates the feel of really knifing people, that’s way over the line.
And if a clear line can’t be drawn, I for one wouldn’t care to see the abolition of all realistic violent games. I’ll still have football, racers, platformers, Final Fantasy (not that care much for that game), ICO and SotC, Katamari Damarcy, EyeToy wierdness, Revolution funness, Tetris and a myriad of puzzlers, comical Lemmings and Worms. It’s not like violence is a necessary part of my game play experience.
Firstly your statistics aren’t really any use. People don’t play computer games and commit crimes in isolation. There’s many other factors. For comparison to your stats violent crime is on the increase the EU. The only way to make such a comparison between games and violence is to take a large population and subject them to exactly the same experiences as another similar population, but without violent computer games.see colon said:
Regards turning people into psychos, I don’t think anyone of sense is saying playing violent games turns people violent, and sit someone in front of GTA and when they’re done they’ll go outside and smack people about. I think the main issues are
1) Does playing violent/anti-sociable/morally-questionable games have a negative effect on people?
2) Are there any limits as to what is okay when it comes to entertainment?
3) If yes to two, who or what should decide those limits?
Now number one has been talked of often, since back in the eighties I remember complaints against the likes of Barbarian. The same is asked of TV and movies too. This is something scientifically immeasurably – there are just too many other influences as to how broader behaviour outside the laboratory is effected. For those that do closed studies trying to compare behaviour in response to computer games without other external influences, for every one that finds a connection between violent games + behaviour, another study doesn’t. All inconclusive. What is needed is some case studies of populations. One might think that historical civilisations who didn’t have violent computer games would be an okay example – “There’s been murders and thuggery long before there were computer games†– but these had other circumstances that would have an affect on peoples behaviour. It’s not like computer games are the only possible cause for violent behaviour! I don’t think there’s any suitable case studies around computer games, but there are examples with other media. There’s a country, Bhutan or Bhopal or something beginning with B I think, that was without TV up until recently. It was ‘backward’, agrarian, and pretty peaceful. Very little violent crime. Then the decision was made to introduce cable TV, 40+ channels of typical Western material. The culture had a huge change, violent crime skyrocketed, murders became far more commonplace where before they were virtually unheard of, girls took to prostitution to pay for the consumer goods being advertised to them... This is the only example we have, AFAIK, of a population where the only change to their culture was the introduction of TV, and from that other changes occurred. Certainly the correlation is there and very apparent.
For me, I see plenty of empirical evidence for the negative side-effects of sex/drugs/violence/etc in media entertainment, though it’s probably impossible for anyone to research it and say for sure yea or nay. Question 1 might never get a conclusive answer, so we’re left with ‘violent games might cause violence, and then again they might not; we don’t know’
So question two. When the anti-gaming lobby makes its complaints, the gaming lobby tend to reply with ‘it’s not real. It’s only a game. I’m not really killing people.’ Is that really a valid argument? If it is, then anything at all is acceptable in games. As my prior example, if someone were to release a game where the intention was to abuse virtual children, would we have no problem with that? How’s about using new technologies, someone can take a photo of a kid on their phone, map it onto a virtual model, and play out their abuse of virtual models of real people? I don’t think anyone (of healthy mentality) would be okay with that. There’d be outrage, no? So why would such a game be unacceptable, when it’s not real and it’s just a computer game? I can’t see how logically, the ‘it’s not real’ argument works, because we know there’s situations where that definitely won’t apply, only no-one yet has thought to create such a piece of software. So why is pretending to beat people up with baseball bat okay but pretending to rape children isn’t? Who sets the standard and decides whether it’s crossed or not?
As Gubbi says, society decides the limits, which is where question three comes in. We don’t know if some computer games can have negative effects on people’s behaviour or not, but we’re certainly not going to let some types of software ever get released. This is going to be decided by society. However, society’s attitudes and tolerances change. I think, and imagine most of you here agree, that capturing people and throwing them into a circus to fight and die for the entertainment of others is wrong. Yet had I, or you, been born and raised in Rome, and from an early age my parents took my down the coliseum to see that, I’d probably have been okay with it. Likewise I have no desire to kill people I dislike and eat them, yet had I been raised on a island with that culture, it’s an activity I’d partake of without any qualms. I don’t go around beating up Jews as I think it’s wrong, but had I been raised in Nazi Germany maybe my opinions and actions would be different? Can society be trusted to choose right from wrong and ensure morally responsible behaviour? I don’t think would argue that works. People have done all sorts of atrocities on the grounds it was acceptable to their population, and many people have since looked back on that behaviour and regretted it. Society can choose values and encourage behaviour that is wrong. Looking to the future, I can be our contemporary culture and abhor the concept of a child-molester simulator, but if in a 100 years time society is okay with that, does it make it right? If you were to pop round a friend’s house today and see them boot up a game where he rapes kids, would be okay with him/her playing that game? Would you okay in 50 years time going round your own children’s house and seeing them playing such a game with you 10 year old grandson? For me, categorically no. And if society were to change to accept any such behaviour, or go back to beating down black folks or using human slaves, I wouldn’t accept society’s standard as a good measure of what’s right or wrong.
This question, who decides what is a fair limit to what’s acceptable, is like the first. It cannot be answered without a true definition of morality, a definition of right and wrong that people can agree to. Is there such a thing as right and wrong, or just the general trends and mores of contemporary culture?
Things are looking pretty inconclusive! Game might be harmless fun with no negative side effects, or an entertainment that has a negative impact on people’s behaviour. Perhaps we’ll never have any definite answers. Faced with a choice, to tolerate such games or do away with them, without definite answers how can we make the right choice? For me, logically, faced with unsure information it’s better to weigh up pro’s and con’s. We can consider the positive and negative benefits to the choices we can make. Eg. If we look at cars as an example, they’re responsible in lots of accidents. If we stopped using cars we’d prevent all those accidents, but at a loss to the convenience that automobiles bring. If we consider violent games are either :
a) Harmless fun, with no negative side effects
b) Entertainment that has a negative impact on people’s behaviour
And the choice to make is either
1) Keep violent computer games
2) Get rid of violent computer games
How would the different choice for 1 or 2 affect society?
In the case of 1b), if we keep the games we’ll be damaging society. For 2b) we get rid of the games and prevent that damage. In the case of 1a) we have an entertainment that we wouldn’t otherwise have, and in the case of 2a) we lose a entertainment.
So our choice really is, keep the games at an unknown risk of damaging society, or lose the games at a risk of losing harmless fun. Which do we prioritise? In the case of cars if we go without them we lose a lot of convenience, but if we go without GTA we lose a game, when there’s many alternatives that can be enjoyed in it’s place, no? We’ll still have our computer game entertainments covering all sorts of genres. We’ll have sports, FPS, RTS, fantasy RPGs. The only thing missing is games that simulate criminal culture. Is that something we can’t do without?
That’s how my reasoning goes. Where most arguments for and against seem to be subjective based on personal ideologies, I can see an logical justification for not allowing realistic violence against humanity etc. centred games. Unless someone can either convince me anything is permissible in computer games, which means convincing me a child molester game is acceptable (Dr Evil might be able to offer reasoning for these seeing as he/she is so dead set against censorship); or convince me that the differences between GTA and a such a child-molester game are decided by a fair party and that party can be trusted to make the right decisions, whether that party be a governmental institution, the games industry, or society itself, and that party’s moral judgements aren’t affected by contemporary fashions of conscience; or convince me there’s no such thing as morality and people should just be free to do whatever they want – I don’t see that not producing such games is a bad thing.
Of course it gets rather grey in some places. As Gubbi says, where do you draw the line and why? But I trust we all agree a line has to be drawn at some point. For myself I’ve played and do play ‘violent’ games, but fantastic and unrealistic. I think game intentions and implementations are where the lines need be drawn. I think it’s when the settings and actions become realistic and the enjoyment is found (for some if not for all that play the game) in the acts of barbarism or criminality. A WW2 combat game is okay as they are, but when you can realistically run in and slash up a soldier with repeated knife attacks and delight in his screams and gurgles from his blood-filled lungs, or buy you virtual corpse controller attachment that has a silicon rubber body and knife that simulates the feel of really knifing people, that’s way over the line.
And if a clear line can’t be drawn, I for one wouldn’t care to see the abolition of all realistic violent games. I’ll still have football, racers, platformers, Final Fantasy (not that care much for that game), ICO and SotC, Katamari Damarcy, EyeToy wierdness, Revolution funness, Tetris and a myriad of puzzlers, comical Lemmings and Worms. It’s not like violence is a necessary part of my game play experience.
is this directed at me? for the record, i've never purchased a rockstar title. i do own GTAIII for pc now, because a friend of mine was moving and was cleaning out his closet, but that's about it. i've played som GTAIII and some GTA:VC, and a small amount of midnight club 1 and 2, and wild metal once on the DC. i'm not a rockstar fan by any means, and certainly not a GTA fan. i'm just tired of the witch hunt.Metal said:
my favorite game DMA designs (now rockstar north) ever made was uniracers on the snes. i never owned it, just rented it a bunch. i would have purchased it, but no place carried it where i lived at the time.
mckmas8808
Legend
Metal said:
And I know this isn't directed at me just because I'm defending the GTA series. I think people are living in the land of OZ when they say, "There are too many violent games and not enough soft hearted nice games". I would say what do they call games like Zelda, every different variation of Mario games, Ico, Madden, Live, the one billion Japanese RPGs, MMOs, MMORPGs, DDR, all the eyetoy like games, Nintendogs, Donkey Kong games, Kamanari Damancy, Lumines, Locoroco (that PSP game), the Burnout series, Gran Turismo series, Kameo, Every Extend Extra, Singstar, the Tony Hawk series, the Final Frame series, Zone of Enders, etc. etc. etc.
I could go on forever about games that are not super violent that are good. It's the media that has you guys confuse. And I'm confused of how a great videogame board can be confused by this?
Out of anybody it should be us that know about all the non violent games that we can play. Does the DS and GBA not count as videogame machines anymore? Was Lumines not created? And why the hell do people act like Nintendo has quit as a company? Everytime a developer talks about next-gen they always seem to leave out Nintendo. Most of the games Nintendo makes are non-violent. That's 1/3 of the console choice that gamers have. This conversation should be cut in the balls just by Nintendo games alone.
And that's not even talking about all the other games that I listed above. And that's not even all of them. Like see colon posted above only 17% of games in 2004 were 'M' rated. 7 out of the top 10 games in 2004 were not 'M' rated. So what's the problem?
mckmas8808 said:And I know this isn't directed at me just because I'm defending the GTA series. I think people are living in the land of OZ when they say, "There are too many violent games and not enough soft hearted nice games". I would say what do they call games like Zelda, every different variation of Mario games, Ico, Madden, Live, the one billion Japanese RPGs, MMOs, MMORPGs, DDR, all the eyetoy like games, Nintendogs, Donkey Kong games, Kamanari Damancy, Lumines, Locoroco (that PSP game), the Burnout series, Gran Turismo series, Kameo, Every Extend Extra, Singstar, the Tony Hawk series, the Final Frame series, Zone of Enders, etc. etc. etc.
I could go on forever about games that are not super violent that are good. It's the media that has you guys confuse. And I'm confused of how a great videogame board can be confused by this?
Does the DS and GBA not count as videogame machines anymore? Was Lumines not created? And why the hell do people act like Nintendo has quit as a company? Everytime a developer talks about next-gen they always seem to leave out Nintendo. Most of the games Nintendo makes are non-violent. That's 1/3 of the console choice that gamers have. This conversation should be cut in the balls just by Nintendo games alone.
And that's not even talking about all the other games that I listed above. And that's not even all of them. Like see colon posted above only 17% of games in 2004 were 'M' rated. 7 out of the top 10 games in 2004 were not 'M' rated. So what's the problem?
I've never heard of a lot of those games you mentioned. Perhaps the problem is not that there aren't enough non-violent games, but that the ones that aren't don't get any visibility. And you can't just blame the media scare for that one. A lot of it has to do with where the publishers decide to put their advertising dollars. Personally, I would classify burnout as a violent game, it's just a different style of violence. And every time I see DDR I feel like I've been assaulted, if that counts.
I wouldn't say I'm a hardcore gamer or anything, but I frequently check out IGN and Gamespy for game news, and I browse these forums. Perhaps it's my focus on PC rather than consoles that gives me a different point of view. PC gaming may cater to an older audience, and tend to lean towards more violent games.
mckmas8808
Legend
Scott_Arm said:
All the bolded sentences is what the problem is with your opinion. Not attacking you because even you revealed that you are not a hardcore gamer. But you have to agree to have a good debate you have to know as much information as possible. Those games that I listed above are ALL hits. Well a few haven't come out yet like Locoroco and Every Extend Extra but they are getting alot of buzz with gamers.
Don't take this analogy the wrong way Scott but you are like a White person that is racist toward black people, yet that didn't even met one before. Meaning that you really can't speak apon something that you don't have enough knowledge of.
And this is what in lies the problem. The media per sey don't know about Nintendogs, DDR, Final Fantasy, Kamanary Damancy, and the like. So they go after the main top selling game that has violence like GTA. This in turn gives the media higher ratings for their TV shows, news channels, and newspapers.
They know most parents don't want to read about great games like Nintendogs or Kameo and how they might effect their kids. Its scare tatics like telling them about GTA that gets the ratings. Just like the hated on Elvis about the way he moved his hips in the 50s (even though he stole that style of dance and that never gets talked about).
Bottom line there is a big choice of games out there for people to choose from. If it wasn't the game industry would fall faster than a comet.
Why would the media talk about 'safe' games? The media reports things that are 'wrong'. The idea, in theory, is educating people about things they ought to be aware of and make decisions over. Okay, these days one's inclined to think they'll write whatever will sell papers or get viewers. But in principle why would the news talk about Mario or Ico? There's nothing there the public needs to be aware of. Whereas if there's 'dangerous mind-corrupting games that turn children into psychos' then that is something the public needs be aware of, no? Like, there's no reports of 'it's safe to keep chickens' on the daily news. The only time we hear about chickens is when they become dangerous because of bird flu. And we don't hear day to day about how our politicans are behaving themselves and dealing fairly with people. The only time politicians are mentioned is with reports of corruption or incompetance. If news is to cover things people need to know then it makes sense only to talk about dangerous or disagreeable things (though personally I feel the news ought to present a balanced view of what society is like, rather than what's just wrong with it). And that means talking about the 'wrong games that need to be banned' without talking about the 'right games that are harmless entertainment' which nongamers have no interest in.mckmas8808 said:
BTW mods : Does this discussion belong in this forum? It's not really related to console hardare or business per se. It's more an RPSC topic topic that happens to be pertaining to gaming, but the principles at the heart of the matter cover all and sundry entertainments. Certainly the debate doesn't involve any discussion of hardware techniques, console costs or game disc formats.
Similar threads
