quote: It''s far more likely that people who seem to degenerate as a result of playing violent games are people who were already unbalanced.

Which is precisely what I said

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

quote: Which is precisely what I said

But it''s not at all what your mother said. Her statement suggests there are people who become violent because of video games, a statement which has not been successfuly demonstrated to be true. A lot of people like to point their fingers at violent people who used to play violent video games as children, but this is not evidence of causality. Such violent people''s motivations are most likely unrelated to video games.

OK since haze and maybe some didnt like my last one here is another.
negative actions cause negative affects

i play fighting games but i dont think its violent. lol
violence to a cirtain degree. for instance mortal kombat was more violent that streetfighter i think. their isnt a yes or no answer but a percentage.

lol ok here is a silly analogy
lets say u asked me to punch u and i do is that violent?
how about if u dont expect me to punch u and i do is that the same?
the word is seems violent but when i say to kill the fly its ok. but to say to kill the bad guy thats so so, and if i say kill inocent civilions then u think waht a violent idea.

i object to violence but to a degree that it is considered violent in a gory, bloody, and uncalled for way.

violence desensitized people, and the mroe violence the more num u become. go read your phycology books and see the difference and what the effects do.

violence should be avoided but allowed. the right thing to do is not use it. i have seen a movie that was more entertaining that only has 2 poeple talking than a bloodfilled movie lol.

some games may require violence but i prefer something like megaman since u take down robopts and i have mroe fun wiht it. i dont mind destroying everything in sight. unlike some other games like carmagedon where u have to run over inocent people.

i saw plenty of games where they have to fight but they didnt use blood gare and decapitations. they just didnt add it in and compensated with better story action graphics.

their is lack fo creativity when useing gore and violence.
funny how tetris still kicks ass lol.

take care

ps. i am not in the mood to look over the typos, speed vs acuracy.

Don''''t say something is great by compairing it to other thing, but by what technology can do.

quote: Original post by Warsong
i am not in the mood to look over the typos, speed vs acuracy.

Please do so, it´s really hard to read and hard to take you seriously if you don´t. Apart from that I consider it a matter of courtesy not to trouble the readers with bad spelling and grammar.

thanks for understanding

My opinion:

Violence, as well as other taboo subjects like sex, can be included in a game or any other creative work without necessarily getting explicit. The movie Casablanca included sex as a major theme... but there was no scene in which anyone was having sex or even naked. The implication was clear but nothing was explicit. Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho included a scene of someone being stabbed to death in the shower... this famous scene is terrifying, but there is never a moment during the scene when the woman is shown with the knife in her. Again, the implication is clear but nothing is explicit.

Violence and sex are a part of the human experience and deserve to be allowed to play a role in any game claiming to be about some aspect of the human experience. If you're making a game about war, it would be ridiculous not to include violence. If you're making a game about romance, it would be ridiculous not to include sex. However, the degree and manner in which you include it is an important decision.

I am strongly opposed to gratuity: violence for its own sake, without any reason or meaning, is unneccesary. Now Quake isn't gratuitous: it's about killing, and makes no claim to be about anything except violence. Games like this have their place; sometimes a player wants to simulate a kill or be killed situation, and the excitement and tension that goes with it. But anyone making a game which includes violence must understand that to some extent the game becomes about violence for its own sake, and if that's not the point you're trying to make then you should consider carefully the amount to include.

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

And as for the question of grammar: it is perfectly possible to type quickly and still make complete sentences of well-spelled words. If your time is so precious that it cannot be spared on this, then perhaps you shouldn't be wasting it making posts at all.

PS. Yes, I make mistakes too. Now please stop commenting on my side point, which was probably better unsaid anyway. Just like my earlier comments on open source.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can't have "civilization" without "civil".

Edited by - SpittingTrashcan on February 3, 2002 12:04:37 PM

A game would be boring if there was no struggle, and the greatest stuggle is that of life and death>?

possibly, I don''t know but I love it when i''m playing fallout/fallout 2/fallout tactics and I shoot someone with my super high powered plama rifle, and they get sliced in half or they melt ...lol

Quote Hase: "You don´t have to be sick to make a violent game. "

I guess you don''t have to be, but I think the most sick twisted evil person, who has probably visited hell themselves could make the most violent game (if they wanted to).

One point that I have not seen so far, although I think Warsong was getting to it a few posts ago, is the difference between violence and cruelty.

The difference between fighting someone in a boxing match and fighting someone who doesn''t expect or "deserve" it is that the second action is cruel. Boxing is violent; bullying is cruel.

Basically, I feel that the idea has to come across that when you''re killing or causing harm to something in a game, that it''s for a justifiable reason (i.e. the person/creature has done something to deserve it). This is how most people define the difference between a police officer or a soldier killing someone and a regular civilian doing the same thing.

Another aspect is the amount of force used. Example: killing someone who attacks you is justifiable; capturing them and torturing them is cruel. I think a lot of people would consider it inappropriate for the second to appear in a game.

Of course, I''m sure there are objections to this (the killers at Columbine thought the other students deserved it because of the way they were being treated), but I think to say that this distinction is meaningless would be foolish.

quote: Original post by SpittingTrashcan
My opinion:

Violence, as well as other taboo subjects like sex, can be included in a game or any other creative work withoug necessarily getting explicit.

. . .


And as for the question of grammar: it is perfectly possible to type quickly and still make complete sentences of well-spelled words. If your time is so precious that it cannot be spared on this, then perhaps you shouldn't be wasting it making posts at all.

(By the way, you misspelled "without". )



Edited by - RabidChild on February 2, 2002 12:32:36 PM

with·oug (wth-oug, wth-)
To eat your own foot.


Edited by - caffeine on February 2, 2002 12:40:22 PM