Video & PC Game Discussion

lol at this discussion about art

But isn't Super Mario Brothers a game about animal cruelty?

Also, Super Libertarian Brothers:

Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: I have a question for you gamers (particularly GTA players)- something I was thinking about for a while: Video games- no matter what kind- appeal to our sense of fantasy, whether we play the role of a WW2 soldier or an Italian plumber.  Games like GTA provide the fantasy of criminality.  It is just a game, however, and no one is really getting murdered.  Sure you ran over 12 civilians and shot 11 policemen, but it's just a game, and these sprites don't really have grieving families to mourn their loss.  Yet you get the satisfaction of being a bloodthirsty murderer. I have not played GTA (after 2) but I've watched my brother play them.  Yes, I think getting more health by banging a hooker is bizarre, but no more bizarre, I suppose, as gathering hearts.  But if I recall, there are no (obvious) children in the game.  And if there were children, would they be invincible from your hail of gunfire?  Why should they be?  Would it be acceptable for a company to release a game where the object is to go to your high school and kill as many students and staff members as possible? Or, since this was mentioned in the news a few months back, what do you think about games that simulate rape?  Legally, murder is a worse crime than rape, but it would seem most folk frown upon such a game more than one that allows you to take the lives of bystanders.  Something must be "sick" or "wrong" with people who play rape video games, but nothing is "sick" or "wrong" with people who play games that simulate mass murder. Is this an absurd double standard in the video game industry, or is there some reason it is the way it is? I know JLocke and I talked about this once before.  So, your thoughts? Here's another thought - Rape in movies or books is not extremely frowned upon by the public - so why should it be banished from video games? Don't get me wrong - I have no interest in playing a game where the main objective is to go around raping people. However, I fail to see why anything that involves sexual violence is considered worse than murder. Isn't the taking of a human life worse than raping somebody? With that said, I still fail to understand all the ruckus about violent video games. It's rare to hear people complain about sadistically violent books, but any video game that's violent (even in a lighter atmosphere) is considered to be worse on a bigger scale. Its interactive nature is "seemingly" worse, but people still can't realize that it's just a game. I've killed thousands of virtual nazis and zombies, and I'm a perfectly happy person. Well... unless a n00b is really getting on my nerves. Good point. I went to a Christian college for a year.  You were not permitted to watch rated R movies and you had to get permission to watch anything else (as I recall).  However, I read about 6 Stephen King novels that year (I can also point you to some pretty "unacceptable" stuff in the Bible). But you get my point. Our sense of what is acceptable and what isn't is pretty baffling on all side.  For conservative Christians, the use of magic or profanity in a medium is unacceptable.  For feminists, women as "sex objects" in a medium is unacceptable.  And then you get all manner of shades in between. Very strange culture indeed.

Very much agreed.

Unfortunately, the result of all these moral beliefs result in something very dangerous to art - censorship. First it was movie ratings. Then it was the PMRC. Now it's the ESRB. The list goes on and on...

It really is amazing what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. Let's use women as sex objects as an example. People often view pornography and strip clubs as a "harm" to women. But aren't these women choosing to engage in this sort of behavior? No one's forcing them to do that! It's their own choice, and they're entitled to that. I'm not endorsing pornography in any way, but it's not "evil" as long as all parties are choosing to do so.

J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: I have a question for you gamers (particularly GTA players)- something I was thinking about for a while: Video games- no matter what kind- appeal to our sense of fantasy, whether we play the role of a WW2 soldier or an Italian plumber.  Games like GTA provide the fantasy of criminality.  It is just a game, however, and no one is really getting murdered.  Sure you ran over 12 civilians and shot 11 policemen, but it's just a game, and these sprites don't really have grieving families to mourn their loss.  Yet you get the satisfaction of being a bloodthirsty murderer. I have not played GTA (after 2) but I've watched my brother play them.  Yes, I think getting more health by banging a hooker is bizarre, but no more bizarre, I suppose, as gathering hearts.  But if I recall, there are no (obvious) children in the game.  And if there were children, would they be invincible from your hail of gunfire?  Why should they be?  Would it be acceptable for a company to release a game where the object is to go to your high school and kill as many students and staff members as possible? Or, since this was mentioned in the news a few months back, what do you think about games that simulate rape?  Legally, murder is a worse crime than rape, but it would seem most folk frown upon such a game more than one that allows you to take the lives of bystanders.  Something must be "sick" or "wrong" with people who play rape video games, but nothing is "sick" or "wrong" with people who play games that simulate mass murder. Is this an absurd double standard in the video game industry, or is there some reason it is the way it is? I know JLocke and I talked about this once before.  So, your thoughts? Here's another thought - Rape in movies or books is not extremely frowned upon by the public - so why should it be banished from video games? Don't get me wrong - I have no interest in playing a game where the main objective is to go around raping people. However, I fail to see why anything that involves sexual violence is considered worse than murder. Isn't the taking of a human life worse than raping somebody? With that said, I still fail to understand all the ruckus about violent video games. It's rare to hear people complain about sadistically violent books, but any video game that's violent (even in a lighter atmosphere) is considered to be worse on a bigger scale. Its interactive nature is "seemingly" worse, but people still can't realize that it's just a game. I've killed thousands of virtual nazis and zombies, and I'm a perfectly happy person. Well... unless a n00b is really getting on my nerves. Good point. I went to a Christian college for a year.  You were not permitted to watch rated R movies and you had to get permission to watch anything else (as I recall).  However, I read about 6 Stephen King novels that year (I can also point you to some pretty "unacceptable" stuff in the Bible). But you get my point. Our sense of what is acceptable and what isn't is pretty baffling on all side.  For conservative Christians, the use of magic or profanity in a medium is unacceptable.  For feminists, women as "sex objects" in a medium is unacceptable.  And then you get all manner of shades in between. Very strange culture indeed. Very much agreed. Unfortunately, the result of all these moral beliefs result in something very dangerous to art - censorship. First it was movie ratings. Then it was the PMRC. Now it's the ESRB. The list goes on and on... It really is amazing what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. Let's use women as sex objects as an example. People often view pornography and strip clubs as a "harm" to women. But aren't these women choosing to engage in this sort of behavior? No one's forcing them to do that! It's their own choice, and they're entitled to that. I'm not endorsing pornography in any way, but it's not "evil" as long as all parties are choosing to do so.

How do you define censorship though?  Labeling something as "Rated R" is not censorship- it's a label.  Forcing a company to cut out content is censorship.  Big difference.

I certainly would object to my son (at 15) playing a rape game, but wouldn't have a problem with him playing, say, Fable, which permits you to have sex with prostitutes or God of War, which is incredibly violent and contains explicit sexual content.  In my mind, I know that is probably something of an logical disconnect, but I have no idea why.

Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: I have a question for you gamers (particularly GTA players)- something I was thinking about for a while: Video games- no matter what kind- appeal to our sense of fantasy, whether we play the role of a WW2 soldier or an Italian plumber.  Games like GTA provide the fantasy of criminality.  It is just a game, however, and no one is really getting murdered.  Sure you ran over 12 civilians and shot 11 policemen, but it's just a game, and these sprites don't really have grieving families to mourn their loss.  Yet you get the satisfaction of being a bloodthirsty murderer. I have not played GTA (after 2) but I've watched my brother play them.  Yes, I think getting more health by banging a hooker is bizarre, but no more bizarre, I suppose, as gathering hearts.  But if I recall, there are no (obvious) children in the game.  And if there were children, would they be invincible from your hail of gunfire?  Why should they be?  Would it be acceptable for a company to release a game where the object is to go to your high school and kill as many students and staff members as possible? Or, since this was mentioned in the news a few months back, what do you think about games that simulate rape?  Legally, murder is a worse crime than rape, but it would seem most folk frown upon such a game more than one that allows you to take the lives of bystanders.  Something must be "sick" or "wrong" with people who play rape video games, but nothing is "sick" or "wrong" with people who play games that simulate mass murder. Is this an absurd double standard in the video game industry, or is there some reason it is the way it is? I know JLocke and I talked about this once before.  So, your thoughts? Here's another thought - Rape in movies or books is not extremely frowned upon by the public - so why should it be banished from video games? Don't get me wrong - I have no interest in playing a game where the main objective is to go around raping people. However, I fail to see why anything that involves sexual violence is considered worse than murder. Isn't the taking of a human life worse than raping somebody? With that said, I still fail to understand all the ruckus about violent video games. It's rare to hear people complain about sadistically violent books, but any video game that's violent (even in a lighter atmosphere) is considered to be worse on a bigger scale. Its interactive nature is "seemingly" worse, but people still can't realize that it's just a game. I've killed thousands of virtual nazis and zombies, and I'm a perfectly happy person. Well... unless a n00b is really getting on my nerves. Good point. I went to a Christian college for a year.  You were not permitted to watch rated R movies and you had to get permission to watch anything else (as I recall).  However, I read about 6 Stephen King novels that year (I can also point you to some pretty "unacceptable" stuff in the Bible). But you get my point. Our sense of what is acceptable and what isn't is pretty baffling on all side.  For conservative Christians, the use of magic or profanity in a medium is unacceptable.  For feminists, women as "sex objects" in a medium is unacceptable.  And then you get all manner of shades in between. Very strange culture indeed. Very much agreed. Unfortunately, the result of all these moral beliefs result in something very dangerous to art - censorship. First it was movie ratings. Then it was the PMRC. Now it's the ESRB. The list goes on and on... It really is amazing what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. Let's use women as sex objects as an example. People often view pornography and strip clubs as a "harm" to women. But aren't these women choosing to engage in this sort of behavior? No one's forcing them to do that! It's their own choice, and they're entitled to that. I'm not endorsing pornography in any way, but it's not "evil" as long as all parties are choosing to do so. How do you define censorship though?  Labeling something as "Rated R" is not censorship- it's a label.  Forcing a company to cut out content is censorship.  Big difference. I certainly would object to my son (at 15) playing a rape game, but wouldn't have a problem with him playing, say, Fable, which permits you to have sex with prostitutes or God of War, which is incredibly violent and contains explicit sexual content.  In my mind, I know that is probably something of an logical disconnect, but I have no idea why.

The AO rating not being allowed to be sold in stores is censorship IMO. It's a debatable topic, though. I'm not allowed to go in a game store and buy an M-rated game without a parent. No it's not direct censorship, but it still does limit sales an exposure... thus, censorship.

And things like this is what I'm mostly worried about...

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/08/30/video-games-get-their-day-in-court.aspx

If this bill got passed, it would be disastrous. If the government got involved, we officially no longer have freedom of speech and artistic expression.

J-Man wrote:   That's the problem. Most parents don't realize that their kids are mature enough to experience the game. They look at the box, read "Ages 17+" and put the game back right back where they found it.

J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: I have a question for you gamers (particularly GTA players)- something I was thinking about for a while: Video games- no matter what kind- appeal to our sense of fantasy, whether we play the role of a WW2 soldier or an Italian plumber.  Games like GTA provide the fantasy of criminality.  It is just a game, however, and no one is really getting murdered.  Sure you ran over 12 civilians and shot 11 policemen, but it's just a game, and these sprites don't really have grieving families to mourn their loss.  Yet you get the satisfaction of being a bloodthirsty murderer. I have not played GTA (after 2) but I've watched my brother play them.  Yes, I think getting more health by banging a hooker is bizarre, but no more bizarre, I suppose, as gathering hearts.  But if I recall, there are no (obvious) children in the game.  And if there were children, would they be invincible from your hail of gunfire?  Why should they be?  Would it be acceptable for a company to release a game where the object is to go to your high school and kill as many students and staff members as possible? Or, since this was mentioned in the news a few months back, what do you think about games that simulate rape?  Legally, murder is a worse crime than rape, but it would seem most folk frown upon such a game more than one that allows you to take the lives of bystanders.  Something must be "sick" or "wrong" with people who play rape video games, but nothing is "sick" or "wrong" with people who play games that simulate mass murder. Is this an absurd double standard in the video game industry, or is there some reason it is the way it is? I know JLocke and I talked about this once before.  So, your thoughts? Here's another thought - Rape in movies or books is not extremely frowned upon by the public - so why should it be banished from video games? Don't get me wrong - I have no interest in playing a game where the main objective is to go around raping people. However, I fail to see why anything that involves sexual violence is considered worse than murder. Isn't the taking of a human life worse than raping somebody? With that said, I still fail to understand all the ruckus about violent video games. It's rare to hear people complain about sadistically violent books, but any video game that's violent (even in a lighter atmosphere) is considered to be worse on a bigger scale. Its interactive nature is "seemingly" worse, but people still can't realize that it's just a game. I've killed thousands of virtual nazis and zombies, and I'm a perfectly happy person. Well... unless a n00b is really getting on my nerves. Good point. I went to a Christian college for a year.  You were not permitted to watch rated R movies and you had to get permission to watch anything else (as I recall).  However, I read about 6 Stephen King novels that year (I can also point you to some pretty "unacceptable" stuff in the Bible). But you get my point. Our sense of what is acceptable and what isn't is pretty baffling on all side.  For conservative Christians, the use of magic or profanity in a medium is unacceptable.  For feminists, women as "sex objects" in a medium is unacceptable.  And then you get all manner of shades in between. Very strange culture indeed. Very much agreed. Unfortunately, the result of all these moral beliefs result in something very dangerous to art - censorship. First it was movie ratings. Then it was the PMRC. Now it's the ESRB. The list goes on and on... It really is amazing what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. Let's use women as sex objects as an example. People often view pornography and strip clubs as a "harm" to women. But aren't these women choosing to engage in this sort of behavior? No one's forcing them to do that! It's their own choice, and they're entitled to that. I'm not endorsing pornography in any way, but it's not "evil" as long as all parties are choosing to do so. How do you define censorship though?  Labeling something as "Rated R" is not censorship- it's a label.  Forcing a company to cut out content is censorship.  Big difference. I certainly would object to my son (at 15) playing a rape game, but wouldn't have a problem with him playing, say, Fable, which permits you to have sex with prostitutes or God of War, which is incredibly violent and contains explicit sexual content.  In my mind, I know that is probably something of an logical disconnect, but I have no idea why. The AO rating not being allowed to be sold in stores is censorship IMO. It's a debatable topic, though. I'm not allowed to go in a game store and buy an M-rated game without a parent. No it's not direct censorship, but it still does limit sales an exposure... thus, censorship. And things like this is what I'm mostly worried about... http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/08/30/video-games-get-their-day-in-court.aspx If this bill got passed, it would be disastrous. If the government got involved, we officially no longer have freedom of speech and artistic expression.

AO ratings not being allowed to be sold in stores?  Who says those ratings can't be sold in stores?  I can buy porn in stores.

You also can't go see an R-rated movie without a parent.  You also can't buy booze or cigarettes.  Age-restriction isn't censorship.  A poor market isn't censorship either.

My opinion is that if minors can buy Stephen King books (or Bibles) they should be allowed to buy M-rated video games.  It's up to parents to restrict them as they deem fit, not salespeople or government (again, in my opinion).

Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: I have a question for you gamers (particularly GTA players)- something I was thinking about for a while: Video games- no matter what kind- appeal to our sense of fantasy, whether we play the role of a WW2 soldier or an Italian plumber.  Games like GTA provide the fantasy of criminality.  It is just a game, however, and no one is really getting murdered.  Sure you ran over 12 civilians and shot 11 policemen, but it's just a game, and these sprites don't really have grieving families to mourn their loss.  Yet you get the satisfaction of being a bloodthirsty murderer. I have not played GTA (after 2) but I've watched my brother play them.  Yes, I think getting more health by banging a hooker is bizarre, but no more bizarre, I suppose, as gathering hearts.  But if I recall, there are no (obvious) children in the game.  And if there were children, would they be invincible from your hail of gunfire?  Why should they be?  Would it be acceptable for a company to release a game where the object is to go to your high school and kill as many students and staff members as possible? Or, since this was mentioned in the news a few months back, what do you think about games that simulate rape?  Legally, murder is a worse crime than rape, but it would seem most folk frown upon such a game more than one that allows you to take the lives of bystanders.  Something must be "sick" or "wrong" with people who play rape video games, but nothing is "sick" or "wrong" with people who play games that simulate mass murder. Is this an absurd double standard in the video game industry, or is there some reason it is the way it is? I know JLocke and I talked about this once before.  So, your thoughts? Here's another thought - Rape in movies or books is not extremely frowned upon by the public - so why should it be banished from video games? Don't get me wrong - I have no interest in playing a game where the main objective is to go around raping people. However, I fail to see why anything that involves sexual violence is considered worse than murder. Isn't the taking of a human life worse than raping somebody? With that said, I still fail to understand all the ruckus about violent video games. It's rare to hear people complain about sadistically violent books, but any video game that's violent (even in a lighter atmosphere) is considered to be worse on a bigger scale. Its interactive nature is "seemingly" worse, but people still can't realize that it's just a game. I've killed thousands of virtual nazis and zombies, and I'm a perfectly happy person. Well... unless a n00b is really getting on my nerves. Good point. I went to a Christian college for a year.  You were not permitted to watch rated R movies and you had to get permission to watch anything else (as I recall).  However, I read about 6 Stephen King novels that year (I can also point you to some pretty "unacceptable" stuff in the Bible). But you get my point. Our sense of what is acceptable and what isn't is pretty baffling on all side.  For conservative Christians, the use of magic or profanity in a medium is unacceptable.  For feminists, women as "sex objects" in a medium is unacceptable.  And then you get all manner of shades in between. Very strange culture indeed. Very much agreed. Unfortunately, the result of all these moral beliefs result in something very dangerous to art - censorship. First it was movie ratings. Then it was the PMRC. Now it's the ESRB. The list goes on and on... It really is amazing what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. Let's use women as sex objects as an example. People often view pornography and strip clubs as a "harm" to women. But aren't these women choosing to engage in this sort of behavior? No one's forcing them to do that! It's their own choice, and they're entitled to that. I'm not endorsing pornography in any way, but it's not "evil" as long as all parties are choosing to do so. How do you define censorship though?  Labeling something as "Rated R" is not censorship- it's a label.  Forcing a company to cut out content is censorship.  Big difference. I certainly would object to my son (at 15) playing a rape game, but wouldn't have a problem with him playing, say, Fable, which permits you to have sex with prostitutes or God of War, which is incredibly violent and contains explicit sexual content.  In my mind, I know that is probably something of an logical disconnect, but I have no idea why. The AO rating not being allowed to be sold in stores is censorship IMO. It's a debatable topic, though. I'm not allowed to go in a game store and buy an M-rated game without a parent. No it's not direct censorship, but it still does limit sales an exposure... thus, censorship. And things like this is what I'm mostly worried about... http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/08/30/video-games-get-their-day-in-court.aspx If this bill got passed, it would be disastrous. If the government got involved, we officially no longer have freedom of speech and artistic expression. AO ratings not being allowed to be sold in stores?  Who says those ratings can't be sold in stores?  I can buy porn in stores. You also can't go see an R-rated movie without a parent.  You also can't buy booze or cigarettes.  Age-restriction isn't censorship.  A poor market isn't censorship either. My opinion is that if minors can buy Stephen King books (or Bibles) they should be allowed to buy M-rated video games.  It's up to parents to restrict them as they deem fit, not salespeople or government (again, in my opinion).

I don't agree with the film rating system either, by the way. Alcohol and tobacco restriction makes sense IMO - that's actually harmful to people's health.

I completely agree on your last point - that's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the parent's job - not the ESRB's.

J-Man wrote:   The AO rating not being allowed to be sold in stores is censorship IMO.

JLocke wrote: J-Man wrote:   The AO rating not being allowed to be sold in stores is censorship IMO.  Perhaps, though I would obviously have to look into the details behind this story before I can give a fully informed opinion. If a filmmaker decides to cut three minutes from his movie in order to avoid and R rating, is that censorship, or good judgment? Nobody is stopping him from releasing the movie as it is; he'd just have to accept a more severe rating and risk a little less audience attendance. It gets more difficult to tell at that point what is censorship and what isn't, I think. I'm not allowed to go in a game store and buy an M-rated game without a parent. No it's not direct censorship, but it still does limit sales an exposure... thus, censorship. Oh, give me a break! Just as I pointed out in my previous paragraph, the film directors/game developers know well enough in advance what will or won't get them a more severe rating, so it's up to them in the end what they wish to do. If they really are 'artists' as you claim, then they will care more about what statement they are trying to make than how many units they ultimately sell, even in a business-oriented field such as gaming. Don't worry about them. They know what they are doing. And things like this is what I'm mostly worried about... http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/08/30/video-games-get-their-day-in-court.aspx If this bill got passed, it would be disastrous. If the government got involved, we officially no longer have freedom of speech and artistic expression. From what I can gather, that bill won't make much difference. Maybe I'm just so out of touch I can't grasp it, but it seems to me kids would still manage to get ahold of M-rated games regardless of what extra bill may be passed to enforce the age restriction.  I'm not saying the government getting involved in such things is the right thing to do, but I also don't think you should blame the ESRB for merely doing their job.

One important note is that the online version article omits the caption that says "anyone who supplies these games will be fined $1000 if the bill is passed".