i've been playing violent video games since i was eight but i never, ever thought about doing something really stupid. my parents taught about right and wrong when i was very young. i think that the only reason why teens commit violent acts is because of bad parents.

The original unreal was rated at 17+. I played it at 10. Here's what I learned:

1. How to level edit.
2. How to program, and that it's fun.
3. 3d Trig.
4. Algebra.

Here's some things I didn't learn:

1. How to fire a weapon.
2. That it's ok to kill.

Perhaps that's because I've always been fascinated with technology, but have never, ever had the urge to kill anyone. For the record, my dad bought that game without me knowing it existed, let alone requesting it.

About rappers sucking because they "take responsability"... actually their responsability on other people's action is rather low. ALL children should be taught from early age that most things on TV, Radio and any other media (games included!) isn't necesarily true.

Then, when a kid feels "inspired" by a rapper to go shoot people... well, he should have known that the 'gangsta' he listens to doesn't really go around shooting people. This is EXCLUSIVELY the parent's responsability.

Sure, the rapper could feel bad for all the bs he sings, but it wasn't his responsability. He changing just makes it easier on parents and sucky for those of us who enjoyed the music.

Anyway, Way walker, now I understand what you mean with warning signs. But even more, if they were to ban the "harmful material", they would get rid of that warning sign and at the same time hurting those who enjoy the material.

And again, as warnings go, they're pretty bad. I can name a LOT of people who grew what would be labeled as a warning (say, hard rock, lots of alcohol, lots of violent games) and, as I said before, they're working family men now, great people while at that.

And about crying children... well, you'd take em out of that graphically violent environment and bring them to see the giant statue of the guy nailed to a cross?
hmmm.
Bottom line is the world IS violent, and what is harmful (but shouldn't be banned) is the approach to violence, glorifying it. Something for the ESRB to think about!
Also.... AO ratings need to stop being a death kiss :s
And someone mentioned, suckful violent games like, say, hooligans, never even get bought.

I may have contradicted myself several times on this post, as I'm rambling hurriedly in someone else's computer. Cheers for a civilized discussion! :)

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker You imply that we should take responsibility for our actions. However, when rappers do that, you say they're "responding to external pressures" and that's why "they suck today".

Excuse you?

Rappers suck today because all they want to do is sell records. Their increasing suckage precisely mirrors the decline in political attention paid to the form, as it has been commercialized, anesthetized and homogenized to irrelevance. When was the last time you heard a good, frightening rap song? Something on the level of Efil 4 Zaggin?

I never said what you claim I said. Please do me the courtesy of understanding my comments or not misquoting them. The point here is that every generation of "responsible adults" finds some disturbing cultural development to blame for the "depravity" in their children. Once, it was jazz. (Yes, jazz! The original "devil's music!") Then it was rock n' roll. Then it was hip-hop. Now, the music industry is such a slave to legislature that it's basically irrelevant to this discourse: no subversive artist/album will have the broad, popular distribution to worry the "concerned parents" of America.

Video games, however, are new. New to the mainstream. New to the consciousness of the larger public as an influential mass medium. So they are the scapegoat du jour, especially since they are still unfamiliar enough to contain raw and "disturbing" material.

The point is that this has nothing to do with the specific medium. It is a pattern that has been repeated for as long as there has been mass media (remember reading about book burnings? protests over Elvis' pelvis gyrating on television? the Hays Code and other uproars over film?), and will continue to be repeated as long as mass media is distributed via a few corporate channels that are subject to government oversight.

Quote:

(For what it's worth, I've never been a fan of gangsta rap or MTV.)

For what it's worth, I don't give a shit.

This post is more directed towards my opinion of violent-themed games, so I'm sorry if this derails the current topic of discussion a bit.

Personally, I don't have an issue with any sorts of topics being covered in games, as long as it's clear up front what content you can expect. I don't mind having warning stickers on the front of game boxes, or certain types of games being restricted to minors without parental consent.

However, I do take issue with the argument I sometimes see phrased in a manner that suggests games cannot influence people. I'm fairly sure that people's behaviour can be influenced in some way by everything that they experience, and games are not an exception. The question I'd like to see answers is exactly how games influence people psychologically, as it's hard to find studies that haven't been politically motivated in some way. I don't think that an average person would be more inclined to violence after playing a violent game, but I don't have the evidence to back that claim up. I also think that people are more likely to be influenced by the subtle messages involved with the stories within games (and other media), such as believing that good will always triumph over evil, or that the lone hero will prevail, hoping for a "story-book" ending to events, or maybe even that violence is the answer to overwhelming problems (this one might be a little bit controvesial). However once again I don't really have any way to know whether this is true or not. If someone could point me out some proper scientific psychological studies of behaviour modification then I'd be interested.

Finally, I am a little bit concerned with the anti-social snuff style games, where the sole purpose of the game seems to be to titilate the player by performing as many vile acts as possible (of which there's a couple of examples described in this Game Design forum right now [smile]). This isn't because I think they're disgusting (although I'm not really partial to these sorts of games, mostly because they usually aren't that much fun). It's more that by having no real redeeming value they provide a huge free kick to those people who wish to heavily censor games. I really don't want to see the equivalent of a Comic Code Authority with games.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi Quote: Original post by Way Walker You imply that we should take responsibility for our actions. However, when rappers do that, you say they're "responding to external pressures" and that's why "they suck today". Excuse you?

Yes, please do.

Quote:

Rappers suck today because all they want to do is sell records. Their increasing suckage precisely mirrors the decline in political attention paid to the form, as it has been commercialized, anesthetized and homogenized to irrelevance. When was the last time you heard a good, frightening rap song? Something on the level of Efil 4 Zaggin?

Honestly? I'm not familiar with Efil 4 Zaggin. Care to make some recommendations on particular tracks to check out?

Frightening in what way, though? I've been listening to more country and bluegrass lately because it knows how to have fun and isn't afraid to cry (I'm a little burnt out on the excessive anger in rock in many of its forms).

Quote:

I never said what you claim I said. Please do me the courtesy of understanding my comments or not misquoting them.

Please forgive the misunderstanding. I hope you can see how I came to my interpretation, though. I had no intention of twisting your words. I specifically left your post quoted in its entirety so that readers could compare my comments (including my "misquoting" them) with your words. If I misunderstood your meaning, then the cure was only a few lines up.

If I get your meaning now, you're saying that the government has neutered rap/etc. and thus is no longer afraid of it (decline in political attention). Am I getting warmer?

Quote:

The point here is that every generation of "responsible adults" finds some disturbing cultural development to blame for the "depravity" in their children. Once, it was jazz. (Yes, jazz! The original "devil's music!") Then it was rock n' roll. Then it was hip-hop. Now, the music industry is such a slave to legislature that it's basically irrelevant to this discourse: no subversive artist/album will have the broad, popular distribution to worry the "concerned parents" of America.

Aye, and I remember hearing a quote from a past philosopher about how the flute was too exciting. It's amusing to see people condemn the depravity of today's art and then go on to praise Shakespeare. I wouldn't be surprised by a fart joke in Shakespeare!

Also, it's not just because these forms have been neutered (I think jazz's balls have grown back), but that the current generation can't rebel in the same direction as their parents. I could't rebel against my parents by listening to the Beatles because that's what they listened to (and listened to, at least in part (the Beatles are good), to rebel).

Another problem is that there are artists in all media who make works whose value is based solely on the "statement". If you don't like it, you "don't understand". No, I understand that your poem uses cheesy rhymes and images; I may agree with what they're saying, but that doesn't make it good poetry. I have some friends who like System of a Down. Some of it's pretty good, but some of it is just plain grating. They don't even try to defend it as good music, they even admit some of the songs are "bad music", but defend it because it's "political". Similarly with a lot of "Christian music" that nobody would listen to if they didn't say "Jesus" every other line (For what it's worth[wink], I'm a Christian and do enjoy a lot of "Christian music", but that doesn't make the crap any better). Picasso was political but still made good paintings. The Beatles were political but still made good music. Why can't they? (And before anyone jumps down my throat, as I said, I do like some of their music.)

Finally, I don't recant what I said about some of it being artists cleaning up their act. Whether they're still good after doing so is another question.

Sorry if this is getting too off topic.

Quote:

Quote: (For what it's worth, I've never been a fan of gangsta rap or MTV.) For what it's worth, I don't give a shit.

I think you misunderstood the point of that comment. It was meant as "Take this all with a grain of salt. My criticism (both praise and condemnation) is being offered on something I don't understand (gangsta rap and MTV) by analogy with something I do understand (rock'n'roll)."

On the whole, I don't think you should give a shit about what I like or dislike in music. You should care insofar as it sheds light on my side of the discussion, but no more. I offered that information because I thought it relevant, not as a judgement on rap or MTV or those who like them in the past, present, or future.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Honestly? I'm not familiar with Efil 4 Zaggin. Care to make some recommendations on particular tracks to check out?

Read it backwards. It's from N.W.A., and pretty much every track was monumental because it articulated a reality that existed but that mainstream America was almost completely unaware of. And that reality was seething and came close, several times, to spilling over, the LA Race Riots being simply the most obvious instance of that anger finding an outlet.

You should also check out Public Enemy's It Takes A Nation of Millions to Hold Us Down and Fear of a Black Planet. That was when hip-hop was political, meaningful and dangerous. N.W.A. wasn't profane for profanity's sake; it was profane because that was its norm, and it wasn't interested in censoring itself to be palatable to you.

(Consider this: Ice-T had five platinum-selling album, and maybe one or two of his tracks were ever played on radio. That was ten years ago, though. Now every "gangsta" is a carefully manicured product of a glitzy record company, attired in perfectly cross-promoted apparel. Neutered.)

Quote:

Frightening in what way, though? I've been listening to more country and bluegrass lately because it knows how to have fun and isn't afraid to cry (I'm a little burnt out on the excessive anger in rock in many of its forms).

Anyone who listens to one genre exclusively is missing out. I like hip-hop because its malleable; it can fuse with anything and express the norms of the external form. But I enjoy country, rock, fusion, funk, jazz, pop, techno, afrobeat... I just think the key is to identify and understand each genre for what it is.

But we digress. (And there was no offense at you. I just disagreed - vehemently, but that's my norm - with your interpretation of my words. I know why it occurred, which is why I went to greater pains to spell out my position.)

Quote:

...I remember hearing a quote from a past philosopher about how the flute was too exciting. It's amusing to see people condemn the depravity of today's art and then go on to praise Shakespeare. I wouldn't be surprised by a fart joke in Shakespeare! Also, it's not just because these forms have been neutered (I think jazz's balls have grown back), but that the current generation can't rebel in the same direction as their parents. I could't rebel against my parents by listening to the Beatles because that's what they listened to (and listened to, at least in part (the Beatles are good), to rebel).

Precisely. Every "rebellious form" becomes the soundtrack of the establishment when the youth grow to adulthood. The incongruity of Pete Townshend (of The Who) having urged rebellion, drugs and so forth in his youth (and smashed 1,001 guitars) - to the unfortunate downfall of many of his peers who took his words too literally - and then growing into perfectly-adjusted adult establishment, putting up plays on Broadway, perfectly illustrates the fact that every rebellion eventually is absorbed into the norm. Now songs from The Who and The Beatles are used in advertisements for mutual fund management firms.

10, 15 years from now the discourse on video games will be completely moot. We will be the decision makers, and video games will be an innate part of our cultural perspective. And our kids will find something else to do that worries us immensely.

Quote:

Another problem is that there are artists in all media who make works whose value is based solely on the "statement". If you don't like it, you "don't understand". No, I understand that your poem uses cheesy rhymes and images; I may agree with what they're saying, but that doesn't make it good poetry. I have some friends who like System of a Down. Some of it's pretty good, but some of it is just plain grating. They don't even try to defend it as good music, they even admit some of the songs are "bad music", but defend it because it's "political". Similarly with a lot of "Christian music" that nobody would listen to if they didn't say "Jesus" every other line (For what it's worth[wink], I'm a Christian and do enjoy a lot of "Christian music", but that doesn't make the crap any better). Picasso was political but still made good paintings. The Beatles were political but still made good music. Why can't they? (And before anyone jumps down my throat, as I said, I do like some of their music.)

I completely agree with you. I think there has been an unfortunate conflation of two distinct issues, the first being the social concern/anxiety over legitimately mature games in light of the antiquated perspective of games as, literally, child's play; and the second being the spineless, incompetent and/or opportunistic game developers pushing degenerate material that serves primarily to tittillate. The former is a valid discussion; the latter are reprehensible and regrettably unavoidable side-effects of the freedoms that our system affords.

Have you seen Saved!? I think it was a brilliant castigation of the hypocrisies and pathetic lack of genuine artistic aspiration that is the contemporary Christian norm. But that was made by non-Christians. Read Franky Schaeffer's Addicted to Mediocrity for a Christian lambasting Christians for "squandering their God-given heritage of artistic excellence" (roughly paraphrased).

Quote:

I think you misunderstood the point of that comment. It was meant as "Take this all with a grain of salt. My criticism (both praise and condemnation) is being offered on something I don't understand (gangsta rap and MTV) by analogy with something I do understand (rock'n'roll)."

My retort, borrowing the exact form, partly meant "It doesn't matter whether you like or don't like given forms, since the forms are not the emphasis of the argument. Substitute jazz or books - or Shakespeare, as you pointed out - if it makes the argument more accessible to you."

Of course, I couldn't resist the opportunity to needle. [smile]

nice reading there guys. I want to add something that was left out from my rushed post up there:

When I mentioned "things I have learned", I am putting the things that (if believed) would DISCOURAGE people from commiting game-inspired crimes and the things that should make it plainly obvious that games are nothing like real life. If one is to learn how to shoot by clicking a mouse (as I've seen some argue!) then why not learn about the usefulness of spinning gold stars?

But of course, no one here is giving the "murder simulator" argument :-)

You have both touched on something that's off-topic, but I agree with, and that's the people attempting to cash (or just get famous) riding the controversy. Usually those are quickly forgotten or shamed forever and ever (Custer's revenge!), so I wouldn't worry about those.

Remember the MPAA controversy about ratings? have you seen documentaries about the XXX rating? it's an interesting read/view... they created it to catalogue the movies that went out of their way to bend the rules.
AO shouldn't be the kiss of death, we need an XXX-equivalent rating which is. AO should be for adults, as in "this material may be misunderstood or harmful for minors" but not as in "this game squirts blood for no reason".

Then again, the medium is still maturing and we're just in the early phase. I have big hopes for games.
Once upon a time movies couldn't carry opinions (moving train! yay!) but as the technique matured, motion pictures moved from mere entertainment to complete works of art.

One tiny example:
Very Serious RoboDOOM, which can be found here--> http://www.indiegamejam.com/igj0/games.html
"It works a bit like the old Robotron 2084 arcade game, but this is more an artistic statement on the futility of the one-against-all power fantasy combat game. You shoot enemies and collect a group of people who follow behind you à la Robotron, but as you do so the camera keeps slowly pulling out, revealing ever more clearly how hopeless your chances really are. The game makes an amazing smooth transition from action game to an artistic statement about the industry."

This one does carry a statement, and you experience it right before it stops being playable... so okay, we're not there yet.

I'd say the reason games cannot yet convey social statements is because the time they take in development. You can't hold on to a feeling for 3 years.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I'm a Christian and do enjoy a lot of "Christian music", but that doesn't make the crap any better)

Interesting how one can make a generalised statement such as this, and no-one bats an eyelid whereas when one attempts to bash "Hip hop" or "Rock n Roll" for example, there's always at least one person who would speak out in its defense..

Whether your a Christian or not it doesn't mean you should attempt to put every single facet of Christian music into one box and slam it just because you may never have heard a decent Gospel track which to you held any substance..

Realistically, christian music isn't even a genre because it isn't defined by a particular style of vocals or sounds.. Gospel music is defined by the fact that its music which edifies God (or should) and can take many forms (even Gospel Hip hop or Gospel Jazz) and so in that respect I hardly think its fair to say such things like christian music is "crap" and most people wouldn't listen to it if they didn't say the word "Jesus" every other line because thats just not the case.

Surely if the music was bad people wouldn't listen to it? (It may not be to your tastes but that hardly qualifies it as bad music overall..)

Sorry for going so far off topic but I don't really enjoy listening to other bash my faith (whether they claim to hold the same or not) without taking the time to fully examine what they are saying and whether or not its actually a fair analysis or they are allowing some form of bias or prejudice to cloud there reasoning..

[Feel free to tear my thread to pieces ;)]

Quote:

Original post by ArchangelMorph Quote: Original post by Way Walker I'm a Christian and do enjoy a lot of "Christian music", but that doesn't make the crap any better) Interesting how one can make a generalised statement such as this, and no-one bats an eyelid whereas when one attempts to bash "Hip hop" or "Rock n Roll" for example, there's always at least one person who would speak out in its defense..

I think my position is more moderate than you think...

Quote:

Whether your a Christian or not it doesn't mean you should attempt to put every single facet of Christian music into one box and slam it just because you may never have heard a decent Gospel track which to you held any substance..

Did I slam it? I just meant to say that bad music isn't turned into good music by referencing Christianity in the lyrics. (Similar to my comments about System of a Down: Just because they're political doesn't make them good.)

Rich Mullins, Newsboys, Five Iron Frenzy, and Brave Saint Saturn are brilliant (I've heard many praises for the first two from non-Christians). Mercy Me, Jars of Clay, Third Day, and Jeremy Camp are also good, if not as "brilliant" as my first list.

The stuff that's bad I don't really dwell on, so I'm hard pressed to come up with names. I didn't really like Tait, his first album had one track that was great, but the rest was just sort of cheesy. If you really wanted, I could probably dig up some more.

For what it's worth, there's music I like that I religiously disagree with. John Lennon's "Imagine" is beautiful, but I disagree with some of its sentiments. There's a pagan song:

The river is flowingFlowing and growingThe river is flowingBack to the seaMother carry meYour child I will always beMother carry meBack to the sea

I love it, but disagree with it (Although, if you replace "Mother Earth" with "Heavenly Father" and reinterpret it as calling Christians together in baptism... but I digress).

Quote:

Surely if the music was bad people wouldn't listen to it? (It may not be to your tastes but that hardly qualifies it as bad music overall..)

"Good music" is very subjective. However, I still feel justified in claiming that some bands make bad music but are successful in spite of this fact because they're Christian/political/etc. Why? Because when I comment that some band is truly horrid, its defenders don't respond with "I disagree, I like it" but say "Yeah, but it's Christian/political/whatever". Bad music with the best intentions is still bad music.

Quote:

Sorry for going so far off topic but I don't really enjoy listening to other bash my faith (whether they claim to hold the same or not) without taking the time to fully examine what they are saying and whether or not its actually a fair analysis or they are allowing some form of bias or prejudice to cloud there reasoning..

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I never meant to slam Christian music in general. Most of the CDs I own are by explicitly Christian bands (e.g. Newsboys, Five Iron Frenzy) or by bands strongly influenced by Christianity (e.g. Live, Dolly Parton). I'd just rather people stop praising bad music with good intentions as if it were good music. There's Christian music that is good music, I see no reason to listen to music that is bad simply because it's Christian.

Quote:

[Feel free to tear my thread to pieces ;)]

On the contrary, I agree with what you're saying.