ahhh... finally I got a chance to get online.

Lets see what we got here:

quote: Original Post by MillaTime
If the system really worked, it would allow them to get a hold of them if they are stable enough to handle them. You must agree that many 13-16 year olds are more mature than many 17-whatever year olds.

Come on, use your head. THE SYSTEM DOESNT WORK...

There is no label, restriction, regulation, law, parent, or authority figure of any kind that is gonna be able to prevent ALL the immature and irresponsible delinquents throughout the world from getting a hold of violent and destructive games! Not now, not 10 years from now, probably not even 1000 years from now. ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Your WRONG... get over it!

quote: Original Post by MillaTime

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
You cant answer a question with another question!... Yet again youve managed to pussy-foot around my original query.

I bet the reason you cant answer my question is becuase you simply haven''t put any thought into it.

Why not? It''s the Socratic Method...do you disrespect the genius of the great Socrates? How about instead of making excuses for me not traditionally "answering" your question, you answer mine? And to appease you, I''ll answer your incredibly simple question. You asked...

I asked you that question (btw before YOUR question) because I didnt know why you would want to create another violent and possibly destructive (notice the word "possibly") game when you could create a non-violent and constructive game that could be just as fun.

I didnt know the answer to the question then... and I still dont know the answer to the question now.

THEREFORE you did NOT answer my question!

You just simply responded with a question of your own.

Answer mine first, and I promise I will try to answer any question you have. (Which you shouldnt have anyways because I have made myself completely clear SEVERAL times)

quote: Original Post by MillaTime

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
I dont blame games for societies flaws...

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
...my view is that games are accountable for violence in this country is...

Who did you say was contradicting themself?

omg. Yet again you have misquoted me. (You just cant stop can you?)

My last quote in their was in response to what CpMan said and you deliberatly chopped my sentence up to make it look like I said something that I simply did not say. Here is what was really said (in its actual length):

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr

quote: Original Post by CpMan
The view that games are accountable for violence in this country is extremely short-sighted.

No, the view that you think that my view is that games are accountable for violence in this country is whats really short-sided.

Wheres a mod when you need one? I said this earlier and I will say it again: Its totally not cool to slander people and manipulate what they have said to make them "appear" to be wrong.

Shame on you MillaTime.

quote: Original Post by MillaTime
If the system really worked...

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
Come on, use your head. THE SYSTEM DOESNT WORK...

That's why I said "if the system worked". It would appear that you are the one who is manipulating what people say to make yourself seem right?

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
Not now, not 10 years from now, probably not even 1000 years from now. ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Your WRONG... get over it!

Wow, I was unaware that you were so proficient in telling the future! I think that you are underestimating technology, and people alike. Even I came up with a nearly flawless method: by setting up a netcam facing the tv, and periodically checking on what is being watched/played while the child is not with a parent. Or take a vital cord to work. Or just get a trustworthy baby-sitter. Or if you feel that your child is so impressionable, and shouldn't be exposed to things like this, do a combination of the three. A child to young to be viewing violent material is probably uncapable of hacking the password to get to it...

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
I asked you that question (btw before YOUR question)

yes, and i explained that it was the socratic method.

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
You just simply responded with a question of your own.

Answer mine first, and I promise I will try to answer any question you have. (Which you shouldnt have anyways because I have made myself completely clear SEVERAL times)

Okay, it's clear you didn't read my whole post. I did answer your question. Here it is again:

quote: Original Post by MillaTime
Because these games are not created for our youth. The M symbol indicates that this game is intended for a mature audience, who are able to be entertained by things such as this. They are intended for people who want an escape from the everyday monotony. This is the goal of the designer. To make the player forget about lifes troubles for a while, and have some fun. The world would be a bland place if escapes like these did not exist. If there were nothing but ho-hum "play the hero" games, and non-stop showing of the Teletubbies on every channel, I dare to say that it may be possible for people who depended on these escapes, may decide to play them out in reality!

Should we stop making cars for people with drivers licenses because some 13-year-old without a drivers license nor the slightest clue of how to drive, might get behind the wheel and try to drive to the store, taking out several pedestrians along the way? The target audience is people who have passed a test deeming them capable of driving, and people who have met the age requirements. Occasionally criminals steal cars, run from the police, and end up crashing/killing some innocent family in their minivan. Should we make the sacrifice of giving up cars because of what may happen in the hands of the wrong people?

Perhaps this is an unfair analogy, as vehicles are a vital form of transportation, and necessary to people's lives. But I feel that entertainment is a vital part of freedom, and without it, life would be stale.

Perhaps licenses should be required to purchase M-rated games?

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
No, the view that you think that my view is that games are accountable for violence in this country is whats really short-sided.

Okay, I have re-read this, and I think that you should too. This could go two ways, and I believe that I misunderstood what you meant to say. This could be said as: "your view of my view is short-sided. My view being that games are accountable for violence in this country." This is how I interpreted it. I believe that what you meant to say could be said as: "Your belief is short sighted. Your belief being that I think that games are accountable for violence in this country, when I do not feel that games are accountable for violence in this country."

I did not intend to "slander" you, nor make you "appear" to be wrong. I feel that we are having a legitimate debate, and therefore no mods should be needed. And lets please keep it that way.



DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!

[edited by - MillaTime on August 18, 2003 5:15:37 AM]

Face it, each of us has that little part of our phycie that wants to kill everybody. But, because we ourselves don''t want to get hurt and all of us killed off, we invented ways to kill just enough to be satisfied until the next generation comes around. We invented war for this purpose, and we also invented games this way too.

The ratings system that's out there right now isn't perfect by any means, but used responsibly it's not bad. Perhaps a debate on it can be held in another thread.

As for why anyone would want to create such a game, I'll point to a really old thread.
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=30627

Though it isn''t clear to me whether or not MillaTime's idea is in the spirit of that thread. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. I don't necissarily agree with the idea, but you have the right to express it and the laws in North America are already there to tell you if it's too much or not.

And maybe this belongs in Game Design.

[edited by - kseh on August 18, 2003 6:39:58 PM]

quote: Original post by smiley4
...each of us has that little part of our phycie that wants to kill everybody .

Nope.

Well, I don''t talk to game hippies the same way I don''t talk to crazies in the street, so I''ll ignore most of the above.

I think if the game was done right, it could be really good. You''d need something a little more challenging than slaughtering defenceless and unaware victims, so you might need to kill someone under armed police protection or something. You could have mini-tasks to complete, like kill the lights in a house before entry, cut the phone lines, etc. I''m imagining something like the "Thief" series of games mixed with movie stuff like "Scream". Perhaps you could be a supernatural killer like Freddy or Jason. You could then add in lots of different game mechanics, like you are only able to harm the victim when their fear level reaches a certain point. Stuff like killing the lights and the phone would raise their fear level, allowing them to get to the phone in time and dial the police would lower it and only give you a certain time to complete the mission before the cops turn up. Stuff like that.

However, saying all that, there is no way a publisher in the US would touch that game with a ten-foot barge pole. You''d get blamed for every real-life atrocity for the next twenty years by the media. Shame really, because it could be a really dynamic game and would lend itself well to the first-person viewpoint, especially with the Doom 3 engine showing how well a dynamically lit level can increase atmosphere.

Rage_Matrix

A couple months back I posted here about a game idea whereby you are a sniper on the loose in a city-like environment. You could choose to just vent the skulls of every poor idiot who walked by, but that'd get the police on your ass..

Read all of that... it's one of the earlier topics I created, in my profile.

edit: Oops, no, it's not. Search on it..

[edited by - TSwitch on August 20, 2003 5:14:42 AM]

Ok back again. I read your post MillaTime, and it still leaves some things unanswered.

quote: Original Post by MillaTime
Wow, I was unaware that you were so proficient in telling the future!

Its not fortune telling... its just plain old common sense.

Your expectations are totally unrealistic. I highly doubt there will be ANY job that will allow you to constantly monitor your child on a webcam. And in the off-chance that they do let you monitor your child remotely... it still doesnt explain how you would monitor your children when they are at their friend''s house.

And come on, you seriously think that EVERY parent is gonna shell out money to get a baby-sitter!?

quote: Original Post by MillaTime

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
Come on, use your head. THE SYSTEM DOESNT WORK...

That''s why I said "if the system worked". It would appear that you are the one who is manipulating what people say to make yourself seem right?

We cant get stuck on "if''s" and "maybe''s".

There''s a million "if''s" you can throw in, but none of them have any substance.

quote: Original Post by MillaTime
Okay, it''s clear you didn''t read my whole post. I did answer your question. Here it is again:

quote: Original Post by MillaTime
Because these games are not created for our youth. The M symbol indicates that this game is intended for a mature audience, who are able to be entertained by things such as this. They are intended for people who want an escape from the everyday monotony. This is the goal of the designer. To make the player forget about lifes troubles for a while, and have some fun. The world would be a bland place if escapes like these did not exist. If there were nothing but ho-hum "play the hero" games, and non-stop showing of the Teletubbies on every channel, I dare to say that it may be possible for people who depended on these escapes, may decide to play them out in reality!

Believe it or not, I did read your post. I guess you didnt read my response the first time?

AND... I dont even know what exactly you were trying to prove with this "answer" but it proves nothing and it doesnt even address the issue of why we think that killing is so fun that we choose it over other non-violent games.

Here is a longer and more clearer version of my question:


Before all the violent games- when there were games like classic pong and stuff like that- what made the first person to develop/write a game that had killing, think that killing is so much of a fun experience that simulating it in a game would actually work? And what makes you so adamant and determined in creating a game like this when you can create a non-violent alternative with the same amount of fun and maybe even more re-play value and originality?


You must obviously think that killing is TRULY fun or else you wouldnt be so defensive when I suggest making a peaceful alternative?

quote: Original Post by MillaTime
Perhaps licenses should be required to purchase M-rated games?

Two words:

"file sharing"

And just because you can''t legally buy the game doesnt mean that
you can''t play it.

And dont even say that the parents should be responsible for ensuring that this works because not all parents care about their kids and what their kids are getting into after-school.

So there you have it. That was NOT a logical answer.

quote: Original Post by MillaTime

quote: Original Post by Zao Martyr
No, the view that you think that my view is that games are accountable for violence in this country is whats really short-sided.

Okay, I have re-read this, and I think that you should too. This could go two ways...

No... it really cant.

I understand it could be confusing at first, but after thorough examination (lmao) it should be totally clear.

quote: Originally posted by Zao Martyr
In any case... shame on you people for being so ignorant.

How can MillaTime be ignorant if he''s backing up his opinions with facts just as you are.

quote: Originally posted by Zao Martyr
Why add more to the never ending list of violent games when you can create something just as fun, that can have a positive effect on our youth?

Who''s to say violent games don''t have a positive effect? I, personally, play violent games because it relieves stress. There''s times when you''re so pissed off you just wanna go punch someone in the face with brass knuckles, but instead, you can pop in a game and, without hurting anybody, release that anger by blowing people up in the game.

quote: Originally posted by Zao Martyr Before all the violent games- when there were games like classic pong and stuff like that- what made the first person to develop/write a game that had killing, think that killing is so much of a fun experience that simulating it in a game would actually work? And what makes you so adamant and determined in creating a game like this when you can create a non-violent alternative with the same amount of fun and maybe even more re-play value and originality?

Maybe some people don''t think non-violent games are as fun? I''m looking at my games now and only about 2 of them fall under the non-violent category: Chessmaster and Nascar. But, hey, maybe those are too violent for ya. I mean, Chessmaster has a Battle Chess mode where actual pieces hit the other pieces off the board...*gasp* oh no, better cut that out. And NASCAR, oh, I guess maybe car crashes are too violent, should pry take that off the shelf. Jak & Daxter, well, you do smack cows around, that may be too violent for ya.

My point: Where does ''stopping violent video games'' end? How violent do they need to be to take them off the shelf?

I''m still goin with keeping violent games in production. A lot of people would be PISSED if they were stopped, and I know there''s other answers to fix this alleged ''violent-video-games-causing-all-violence-in-our-country'' problem.

I guess that''ll bring up my other point. Who''s to say that violent video games really are to blame? The media? HA! Why isn''t this a bigger in Japan and England, because they play video games, too. Maybe there''s something else wrong with our country.

Moose

quote: Originally posted by moose_2006

quote: Originally posted by Zao Martyr
In any case... shame on you people for being so ignorant.

How can MillaTime be ignorant if he''s backing up his opinions with facts just as you

Ok... lmao I was just waitin for something like this.

(And you seriously think he''s "backing up" his opinions with facts... Come on... all of his "facts" are faulty!!)

quote: Originally posted by moose_2006
Who''s to say violent games don''t have a positive effect? I, personally, play violent games because it relieves stress. There''s times when you''re so pissed off you just wanna go punch someone in the face with brass knuckles, but instead, you can pop in a game and, without hurting anybody, release that anger by blowing people up in the game.

Good point... its the first logical argument ive seen up here.

But it still leaves alot of doubt. Even though we may not be 100% sure that violent video games produce negative effects, does that mean we should ignore it?

Technically, we arent even 100% sure if terrorists will strike today, tomorrow, or the next day; But that doesnt mean we should just disregard the threat.

quote: Originally posted by moose_2006
My point: Where does ''stopping violent video games'' end? How violent do they need to be to take them off the shelf?

Your arguing with the wrong person... and that is why I called MillaTime ignorant... and it is why I am now calling you ignorant.

Because I never told MillaTime not to make a violent video-game... I just questioned his reasoning behind it. And speaking of which, he (or anyone who thinks they can) has yet to answer it.