Have video games finally gone too far?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I personally found the premise of the game to be somewhat distasteful and I'm not a fan of over the top violence but whatever. I don't have to buy the game and it is as simple as that. I'm sick of people complaining that certain games don't conform to their morality. If you don't like it don't buy it. Time to stop worrying about whether or not people are sane enough to handle what they see in media. That is such an elitist mentality. Just because one crazy person may say they are inspired by X or Y piece of media doesn't mean the rest of us should be punished and deprived. Heck, they used to say Catcher in the Rye inspired people to kill. Censors will always try to find ways to blame art for the ills of society, but art is just a reflection. When you identify with or are inspired by a piece of art it is because that art is reflecting something already inside of you.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

[sNIP]

Actually there isn't so much a drought as in there is a lack of diversity. 

 

What really happened was the following:

• Consumers wanted every better graphics
• Consumers shifted to realism and M rated games
• Developer wanted to make realistic M rated games
• Development costs went through the roof with HD development forcing developers to close and to focus on their best selling IPs. 
• Consumers in the West quit buying anything that wasn't yearly sports game XXX and AAA blockbuster games etc.... 
• Nintendo was the only major developer and platform holder who refused to play this game (they really can't afford to bleed billions on selling their systems below market costs like the competition)
• Consumers quit paying $20+ for colorful based games, because kiddy, casual, and inferior games. 
• iOS came out and developers started racing to the bottom on price, now no one wants to pay more a few dollars for game on mobile/handheld
• Android came out and starting giving software away for free, now very few Android users want to pay anything for software.
• Steam came along and introduce massive sales at least twice a year, which causes PC users to wait and buy PC games for pennies on the dollar. 

Now gamers are complaining about having too many colorful/kiddy/casual games flooding Xbox One and PS4 at the expense of realism/shooters/hardcore games. 

They are also complaining about the lacks of shooters/hardcore games leading to many articles wondering if hardcore gaming is dead. 

 

Nintendo is suffering from having the image of being for casual/women/kids/Japanese, which is affecting what developers release on there systems.

3DS is widely ignored from gamers because it lacks mature/shooters/hardcore games and is handheld (handheld games aren't real games), while market data "shows" hardcore gamers prefer iOS devices over traditional handheld/PC games.

Wii U suffers from many issues including too many colorful/kiddy/casual/minigames and lacking shooters/mature/hardcore games. 

 

If you see Simcity turn into a GTA/FPS/Mature games, don't be upset and surprised. 

 

P.S. Wii has a decent library of non mature/shooters/hardcore games that aren't made by Nintendo.

 

It's just my personal taste in games. If all those games I like on the older systems are considered "kiddy/casual/minigames", then so be it. It was all good fun and done rather well. It was a good run (I'd say roughly 1989 through 2001 was a "golden age").

 

Like I said, when it comes to video games, my time has passed. I'm glad I was there for it and embraced it. Things do inevitably change over time, for one reason or another. The current shooters/ultra-realism/hardcore theme just isn't my thing. My friend, however, loves it. To each his/her own.

 

Edit: I just realized that my two posts in here so far aren't completely on-topic.....oops. In regards to video game violence, I'll post later.

[jmsepe 2,039]

We live in a much free bounded world, people have right to choose whether to buy the game or not. The premise that that video games have finally gone too far due to one computer game that promotes violence is a hasty generalization. We have yet to see an even worst coming virtual reality of these games, if I must say for the lack of better term.

 

In my opinion, giving away a very conservative thought, I don't actually find anything inappropriate at all. Surely the market audience of this game is not below the legal age. Considering these people are already adults, one has to be very keen not to get psychologically attached to what he is playing otherwise he might lose grasp of what reality and what is fantasy. With that being said, the real problem here is that how about those who gets the copy of the game without even reaching the appropriate age? They are more prone influence. At the end of the day, it still boils down to parental guidance. Why limit the fun of others for the sake of those who cannot find it enjoyable at all. You don't like the game? Simple, don't buy it.

 

Let us just say that there is a double standard when it comes to movies and games although I don't think so that it would be very good to equate two very different industries. 

[Compdude787 916]

I personally found the premise of the game to be somewhat distasteful and I'm not a fan of over the top violence but whatever. I don't have to buy the game and it is as simple as that. I'm sick of people complaining that certain games don't conform to their morality. If you don't like it don't buy it. Time to stop worrying about whether or not people are sane enough to handle what they see in media. That is such an elitist mentality. Just because one crazy person may say they are inspired by X or Y piece of media doesn't mean the rest of us should be punished and deprived. Heck, they used to say Catcher in the Rye inspired people to kill. Censors will always try to find ways to blame art for the ills of society, but art is just a reflection. When you identify with or are inspired by a piece of art it is because that art is reflecting something already inside of you.

Well said! If people don't like the game, yeah, don't buy it.

The current shooters/ultra-realism/hardcore theme just isn't my thing. My friend, however, loves it. To each his/her own.

Same for me. I have no desire to play any shooting games. I like to build things, not destroy them. I've been that way my entire life; when I was really little, I would build these really awesome Thomas the Tank Engine train layouts on the living room floor, then my little brother would come along and destroy them!   Even now, he still apparently thinks that was fun. He built one of the cities in my region, then he started unleashing natural disasters and destroying the whole thing. (My computer didn't like what he did to the beautiful city he made, and it deleted the whole city savefile) For all the years I've played SimCity, I have never done a disaster. Not once. Why build a city just to destroy it? That seems like such a waste of time.

[Munchiez 74]

This game is the eptiome of psychotic imagination. It really can be used as a simulator for those crazy enough to view it that way. Like Larks said, the VT shooter used Doom as a simulator for his plan. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer, played violent video games all the time, being locked away in his room fantasizing about killing many people. This would be something that killers would embrace, it would be provacative to them, and they could use this to fuel their anger and plans. As for the gun issue, we will never stop the debate with that. Simply put, it will never end violence, and there will be mass killings here even if the fantasy plan to rid guns from public hands happened. Don't go pointing fingers at millions of gun owners because a four or five dangerous psychos go on killing sprees.

 

What we have here is a culture of violence and hatred, NOT this silly notion that we have a "gun culture problem" because this "culture" of firearm ownership dates back to the existence of our great nation. That's the risk we're willing to take because with absolute freedom comes absolute responsibility. Back to this game....the culture of violence has been spreading since Hollywood and game studios have embraced super violence on film, and on the game market. The culture of gang violence, main stream fads, violent films, and other mediums have not helped toning down the killings.

 

We live in a disturbed world. This isn't limited to here in The United States. This game can "inspire" any sicko anywhere in the world, and yes, games can aid the imaginations of those plotting to kill hundreds. The harder you make things on them the more creative they will become. Soon, they will stop using conventional weapons, like knives and guns, and begin using terror level means....such as bombs...and even scarier, chemical and biological weapons. Look what happened during the Boston Bombings, easy for them to make, and they were sickos too pushed by Islamic jihadist plans.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This game is the eptiome of psychotic imagination. It really can be used as a simulator for those crazy enough to view it that way. Like Larks said, the VT shooter used Doom as a simulator for his plan. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer, played violent video games all the time, being locked away in his room fantasizing about killing many people. This would be something that killers would embrace, it would be provacative to them, and they could use this to fuel their anger and plans. As for the gun issue, we will never stop the debate with that. Simply put, it will never end violence, and there will be mass killings here even if the fantasy plan to rid guns from public hands happened. Don't go pointing fingers at millions of gun owners because a four or five dangerous psychos go on killing sprees.

Don't go pointing fingers at millions of gamers because a four or five dangerous psychos go on killing sprees. 

 

As for Adam Lanza, in case you didn't read the final report, it said that his gaming obsession was Dance Dance Revolution. Sure, he also played violent games, but he also played plenty of non violent games. We are talking about a guy here who had a clear obsession with serial killers and mass murderers and who was mentally unstable, but yeah lets blame games for that. And the VT shooter? He didnt play Doom, he played Sonic the Hedgehog. But yeah, lets blame games anyways. The people that were obsessed with Doom were the Columbine shooters, but then again, they were also really into bowling. How many people do you see blaming bowling for violent behavior. 

 

And again, if games make people violent, or set off unstable individuals to go on shooting sprees, then why don't we see anything like it in other countries?

 

 

No, I completely agree with MilitantRadical, media doesn't inspire violence, don't censor it. And if you don't like the content of certain media then don't buy it. 

[nathanthemayor 1,263]

Although I do believe that it is the right of the person buying a extreme video game to decide whether to buy it or not(At least, 18 or over when it comes to extreme titles), i also agree that video games have become worse in the last two decades in terms of violence, gore, etc. In particular, I think about hearing how a lot of the mass shootings done since the 90's were done by people addicted to violent video games, and that alone worries me. Personally, I would not buy or play any game with a huge amount of violence, shooting, drug use, etc. or anything too extreme in general(For the record, I know this sounds shocking of me considering my age but I have never played anything above E-10 rating)

[Duke87 1,070]

Alright folks, one more time: discuss the issues, not each other.

Also, this topic is about violent video games, not crime statistics. If you would like to have that discussion please make a separate thread for it in The Current Events forum.

[oldnavy 11]

I'm not for games like this, especially this one and what I saw in the trailer; however, the game could be like GTA where missions actually say nothing of having to kill random people (while allowing people to do so and giving points).

 

I saw a woman in the trailer being held at gunpoint begging for her life; what if the game gives you even more points when someone begs and you DON'T shoot them? We don't know the full details yet regarding the game's coding. If there was any game like this made, I would hope it would be for people that are criminally insane, that it would encourage and HELP them to CHANGE their ways.

 

Personally, I'd rather someone do this in a game than in real life. If you think for a moment that there is all bad in the world and no God, you fail to realize someone or something had to care to NOT be destructive, in order to create YOU. THere has to be more good than evil for more people to be born than die, at any given moment, and, if all someone sees is the bad, that is all they are looking for and all they will ever find. I hope this game's intent is of changes to people's pessimistic ways of thinking. If someone wants to play this game just for rampant killing, refusing to release this game or banning it will not change their ways; they are still a ticking time bomb; this is where we get the expression "guns don't kill people - people kill people"

 

If they would release a demo (I'm sure they've coded enough of the game to immediately do so), we could make a further examination.

[iLoveMusic 66]

I'm not for games like this, especially this one and what I saw in the trailer; however, the game could be like GTA where missions actually say nothing of having to kill random people (while allowing people to do so and giving points).

 

I saw a woman in the trailer being held at gunpoint begging for her life; what if the game gives you even more points when someone begs and you DON'T shoot them? We don't know the full details yet regarding the game's coding. If there was any game like this made, I would hope it would be for people that are criminally insane, that it would encourage and HELP them to CHANGE their ways.

 

Personally, I'd rather someone do this in a game than in real life. If you think for a moment that there is all bad in the world and no God, you fail to realize someone or something had to care to NOT be destructive, in order to create YOU. THere has to be more good than evil for more people to be born than die, at any given moment, and, if all someone sees is the bad, that is all they are looking for and all they will ever find. I hope this game's intent is of changes to people's pessimistic ways of thinking. If someone wants to play this game just for rampant killing, refusing to release this game or banning it will not change their ways; they are still a ticking time bomb; this is where we get the expression "guns don't kill people - people kill people"

 

If they would release a demo (I'm sure they've coded enough of the game to immediately do so), we could make a further examination.

Careful with that "all bad in the world and no God" bit. Let's not derail this thread for a third time.

 

And about the "guns don't kill people, people kill people", I always thought that was rather silly. I can't kill you by pointing my finger at you and shouting "BANG", now can I? I'm not against guns or anything like that, but let's be realistic here.

[Huston 5,800]

 

I'm not for games like this, especially this one and what I saw in the trailer; however, the game could be like GTA where missions actually say nothing of having to kill random people (while allowing people to do so and giving points).

 

I saw a woman in the trailer being held at gunpoint begging for her life; what if the game gives you even more points when someone begs and you DON'T shoot them? We don't know the full details yet regarding the game's coding. If there was any game like this made, I would hope it would be for people that are criminally insane, that it would encourage and HELP them to CHANGE their ways.

 

Personally, I'd rather someone do this in a game than in real life. If you think for a moment that there is all bad in the world and no God, you fail to realize someone or something had to care to NOT be destructive, in order to create YOU. THere has to be more good than evil for more people to be born than die, at any given moment, and, if all someone sees is the bad, that is all they are looking for and all they will ever find. I hope this game's intent is of changes to people's pessimistic ways of thinking. If someone wants to play this game just for rampant killing, refusing to release this game or banning it will not change their ways; they are still a ticking time bomb; this is where we get the expression "guns don't kill people - people kill people"

 

If they would release a demo (I'm sure they've coded enough of the game to immediately do so), we could make a further examination.

Careful with that "all bad in the world and no God" bit. Let's not derail this thread for a third time.

 

And about the "guns don't kill people, people kill people", I always thought that was rather silly. I can't kill you by pointing my finger at you and shouting "BANG", now can I? I'm not against guns or anything like that, but let's be realistic here.

 

 

That's not an overly ridiculous phrase. Because a gun can't kill you or another either without someone to wield it. Therefore, whether someone dies by gunshot is in the hands of the beholder wielding that gun. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, the gun could only kill someone if there was someone pointing it and shooting; guns don't necessarily kill people singlehandedly, people do. Seems realistic to me.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

 

I'm not for games like this, especially this one and what I saw in the trailer; however, the game could be like GTA where missions actually say nothing of having to kill random people (while allowing people to do so and giving points).

 

I saw a woman in the trailer being held at gunpoint begging for her life; what if the game gives you even more points when someone begs and you DON'T shoot them? We don't know the full details yet regarding the game's coding. If there was any game like this made, I would hope it would be for people that are criminally insane, that it would encourage and HELP them to CHANGE their ways.

 

Personally, I'd rather someone do this in a game than in real life. If you think for a moment that there is all bad in the world and no God, you fail to realize someone or something had to care to NOT be destructive, in order to create YOU. THere has to be more good than evil for more people to be born than die, at any given moment, and, if all someone sees is the bad, that is all they are looking for and all they will ever find. I hope this game's intent is of changes to people's pessimistic ways of thinking. If someone wants to play this game just for rampant killing, refusing to release this game or banning it will not change their ways; they are still a ticking time bomb; this is where we get the expression "guns don't kill people - people kill people"

 

If they would release a demo (I'm sure they've coded enough of the game to immediately do so), we could make a further examination.

Careful with that "all bad in the world and no God" bit. Let's not derail this thread for a third time.

 

And about the "guns don't kill people, people kill people", I always thought that was rather silly. I can't kill you by pointing my finger at you and shouting "BANG", now can I? I'm not against guns or anything like that, but let's be realistic here.

 

 

That's not an overly ridiculous phrase. Because a gun can't kill you or another either without someone to wield it. Therefore, whether someone dies by gunshot is in the hands of the beholder wielding that gun. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, the gun could only kill someone if there was someone pointing it and shooting; guns don't necessarily kill people singlehandedly, people do. Seems realistic to me.

 

It is a ridiculous, poorly worded phrase. The phrase "people kill people" is more akin to one man beating another man to death with his bare fists. "Guns kill people", well of course nobody is assuming that the guns are killing with no controller. That would be stupid. It's widely known that guns are held, loaded, controlled and fired by people - this isn't a new discovery. Guns make it easy to kill a lot of people, they're convenient. You can do it with a knife too, like in China, if you're determined enough - but it probably won't get you as far as a gun would. The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a cornered man's last gambit who has total determination to keep guns in a good light and has no other logical or rational argument to offer. Guns are made specifically to kill or greatly injure, with convenience. That's why they exist and continue to exist. They're not sacred, cuddly toys worthy of high praise.

 

Tough sell.....

[Huston 5,800]

 

It is a ridiculous, poorly worded phrase. The phrase "people kill people" is more akin to one man beating another man to death with his bare fists. "Guns kill people", well of course nobody is assuming that the guns are killing with no controller. That would be stupid. It's widely known that guns are held, loaded, controlled and fired by people - this isn't a new discovery. Guns make it easy to kill a lot of people, they're convenient. You can do it with a knife too, like in China, if you're determined enough - but it probably won't get you as far as a gun would. The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a cornered man's last gambit who has total determination to keep guns in a good light and has no other logical or rational argument to offer. Guns are made specifically to kill or greatly injure, with convenience. That's why they exist and continue to exist. They're not sacred, cuddly toys worthy of high praise.

 

Tough sell.....

 

 

People kill people is hardly generally akin to hand-to-hand physical confrontation. However you put it, using a gun to kill somone fits within that description. Because regardless, that person is killing said person (or persons) - gun or no gun. Convenience posed by the use of a gun has no real relevance to the idea that people kill people. All it does is add to the potential scale of casualties but it's still people killing people. Yes, the gun may be killing the person, but it's really just an instrument in the process of a person killing a person. I see no real inaccuracy to the phrase.

 

:/

[New City Mayor Defacto 50]

 

 

not far enough

[Duke87 1,070]

Alright, we're done. Gun philosophy is also on the list of things this thread is not about. Thread closed.