OK I need your opininons over video gaming violence and some of the issues wiht politics and people trying to end it. Also anothe interesting point is that Japan put a strict rule on GTA 3 2-3 years after it came out, ask me for more info or if u alrdy know it post it
Wheat
Violence in Video games is a must without it games would suck...
It's lame that people try to make a scapegoat out of video games. For the most part people that I've talked to find the violence factor rather relaxing lol. It's just the people who are fucked in the head (or by society) who use it to quote unquote, train themselves (which could probably be done by watching some violent movie over and over anyway).
violence in games.... i love it! people in politics who try to ban it.... assholes! they should stick to politics and not society habits. games... my life!
There's nothing violent about Video Games. Thompson believes this cause he's a crusader for soccer moms.
what???.....theres violence...IN VIDEO GAMES.....i gotta gt into this
Monster Count: 2999 - Countdown to 3000
DO ANY OF YOU BOYS LIVE IN VIRGINIA?!
I think the more gore and violence in the game,the more I'll like it and the more my parents hate video games
-
I like how Adam Carolla put it tonight. You have to be stupid in the first place for violent stuff on TV and in video games to offend you.
tre
At 8/12/05 02:58 AM, F00D wrote: I like how Adam Carolla put it tonight. You have to be stupid in the first place for violent stuff on TV and in video games to offend you.
Haha typo. While what I said may be true, I meant "effect" not "offend." And by effect I mean make them do something violent.
tre
everyone loves violence just like everyone loves raymond
Video Game violence owns. I'd rather kill many people in GTA, than in real life. Jack Thompson is just an idiot, who thinks we're going to hooray to him while he is saving us from the violence in games...
At 8/12/05 03:03 AM, Kurt_ wrote:At 8/12/05 02:41 AM, PlaGue69 wrote: Violence in Video games is a must without it games would suck...Wrong! How do you think we survived the generation of Mario and The Atari? NO VIOLENCE THERE, BUD.
Mario was violent if you really look at it. Shooting enimies with fireballs, knocking bowser in a lava pit. No gore though.
i dont really care if theres violence in video games as long as its a half decent game (ie not movie tie ins) then im happy and the problem is though that only the games that arent movie tie ins have true violence (bizarly well animated blood and the like)
At 8/12/05 03:03 AM, Kurt_ wrote:At 8/12/05 02:41 AM, PlaGue69 wrote: Violence in Video games is a must without it games would suck...Wrong! How do you think we survived the generation of Mario and The Atari? NO VIOLENCE THERE, BUD.
OMG!!1 are you kidding!? mario jumped on things heads and smashed them flat! oh noez!1 Violance!!
Huzzwhat? Violence in videogaming is like toilets in bathrooms.
In other words, I don't like making sense.
HEY MY NAME IS FRAGMENT, AND I GO TO THE POTTY ALLL BY MYSEEEELFFF
sig by Marsupial, copyright 2008 all rights reserved
I appreciate Jack whatever his name is's views, I think that children shouldn't be allowed near games like Killer7 and GTA. I think it's terrible that my next door neighbour's ten year old son plays GTA:SA regularly. However, I think that the rating system should be applied to using the products as well as purchasing. It should be against the law to play a game that you're too young to purchase. Parents shouldn't be allowed to let their 10 year old child happily while away the hours on an 18 rated game.
At 8/12/05 04:54 AM, uneaten_cookie wrote: OMG!!1 are you kidding!? mario jumped on things heads and smashed them flat! oh noez!1 Violance!!
Tetris.
At 8/12/05 05:14 AM, Hypocrite wrote:At 8/12/05 04:54 AM, uneaten_cookie wrote: OMG!!1 are you kidding!? mario jumped on things heads and smashed them flat! oh noez!1 Violance!!Tetris.
and Pong.
Antarctic Adventure.
Katamari Damacy.
At 8/12/05 05:16 AM, HeinousDude wrote:At 8/12/05 05:14 AM, Hypocrite wrote:and Pong.At 8/12/05 04:54 AM, uneaten_cookie wrote: OMG!!1 are you kidding!? mario jumped on things heads and smashed them flat! oh noez!1 Violance!!Tetris.
Antarctic Adventure.
Katamari Damacy.
Hello Kitty, oh the horror
At 8/12/05 05:23 AM, Sinterkaas wrote: Hello Kitty, oh the horror
What the hell? THere are kids on this site, damn it! That's worse than a pic of my penis. Jeez, censor a bit.
HEY MY NAME IS FRAGMENT, AND I GO TO THE POTTY ALLL BY MYSEEEELFFF
sig by Marsupial, copyright 2008 all rights reserved
nothing wrong with video gaming violence
GTA, resident evil they both carry lots of blood and gore in them but they are great games.
plus there is loads of violence in the real world its not like a game if going to change it.
no
I think people make too big of a deal about it, it is a VIDEO GAME so what fake violence, it's just for fun and people don't realise it, and it is rated M for mature 17+, but of coarse kids play them more, Id say probly ages 12-15 play them the most then 16+ but i could be wrong, but i personally dont think age matters so much, its maturity, like those kids who snipered those cars and blamed it on GTA saying they thought they were playing the game, I heard this in 3rd period last school year in news week or somthing and starting laughing (along with a few other people), those kids knew they werent playing the game they just wanted out of it, and I dont blame them, but you have to take responsibility for you actions, anyway i think it only matters with maturity and if your kid is mature like, doesnt act like a complete retard, does his/her homework, does good in school, they should be able to earn that game, but if they're your basic asshole kid then no.
can't talk, stabbing five year olds with screwdrivers.
sry got off topic voilence in games is over rated not a big deal really
The images on the screen aren't real. A rational person can differentiate between fantasy and reality. To say that a violent video game would influence someone's behavior any more than other media is completely illogical.
Books and movies have been showing scenes of intense violence (many of which are much worse than anything ever featured in a video game) for years. The argument that anti-game activists like to use is that the games make it "more real" by making it into an interactive activity that teaches behavior instead of simply showcasing it.
The flaws in that argument are numerous.
First of all, there's a significant difference between the behavior that a game teaches and the behavior that the activists like to link it to. The games encourage the player to learn a system of patterns that will allow them to master the game and succeed in its challenges. Non-players see these patterns in terms of the aesthetics and thematic content. Players see these patterns in terms of finger movements and reactions to motion on the screen. Playing Space Invaders won't teach you how to fly a space shuttle any more than Grand Theft Auto will teach you how to steal a car or win in a fist fight. Despite the vast graphical differences between the two aftorementioned games, the level of abstraction between the actions they represent and the actions carried out during interaction with them is identical.
That leaves the psychological effects of seeing the violent actions carried out in a realistic manner. Anti-game activists like to point out realistic blood and gore as a dangerous element in games, because it "desensitizes" the players to the sight of blood and gore, which, they claim, will make them less intimidated about practicing violent real-world behavior. This is stupid. Not only are other forms of media infinitely more realistic than even the most graphically advanced games, but the idea that the sight of blood or gore would be a significant detraction from committing violent acts is just silly. If desensitization to blood and gore was a deciding factor in whether someone is the type to go on a killing spree or not, every first-year medical student in the world would be a serial killer.
The other major point remaining is the morality question. Activists seem to believe that morality taught in games extends into a gamer's real-life world views by default. They seem to be underestimating not only the gamers themselves, but every other source of moral guidance that the gamers may be exposed to. With the possible exception of very small children (under age 10, let's say), it doesn't take a great deal of moral coaching for them to differentiate between the boundaries of a game and the real world. Children have no trouble differentiating between non-video games (such as Tag, Hide & Seek, House, etc) and reality. And those games take place in the physical world. If a child can understand the difference between a desk during class time and a desk while playing House at recess, how would they have trouble understanding the difference between a game that takes place entirely inside a a television set that they're controlling by pressing buttons, and the real world? And in adult terms, if someone can understand the difference in rules between playing Poker and Crazy Eights, how could they possibly have trouble understanding the difference between the weapons and people that exist inside the television screen while playing a game and the ones that exist in the real world?
And finally, pretending for a moment that games really can make people more violent and likely to mimic the behaviors they "learned" in the game... Why is it that Grand Theft Auto, a third-person game controlled with a joystick, has been used as a defense for shooting people will guns, while Time Crisis, a lightgun game that requires the player to actually pick up a toy gun and aim it like a real gun, has never even been mentioned?
this took forever to type, so if it happens to be really similar to something that was just said--yeah. too bad.
