Now that Manhunt 2 is about to be released, i've seen the media and psycologists with the same violence bullshit again. Saying that violent games disturb kids and teens mind and make them going nuts.
That's just stupid...I mean, i play videogames since my 4 years,and i played so much "violent" games,and i watch really gore movies,and i am a very peaceful person.

Other thing i read/heard is that videogames make them(kids/teens) imitate what they see. I'm a huge Boktai fan and i never tried to piledrive anyone(That's just an example) .
If that's the problem,then parents should teach children the difference,between games,and reality.And not blaming videogames/tv or something for their acts.

I heard it wasn't going to be released as it got banned from Europe and the US due to graphic violance.

It's a much more complicated issue than "I have seen a lot of violent stuff, but I don't immitate it!" Nobody argues that kids who see things in video games immediately always go out and do them. That's just stupid. The idea is that the game suggests that violence is cool and can therefore be a factor, among many other things, in a person coming to the decision to do something violent, and it's a perfectly valid argument.

I don't agree with the method of banning the game outright, but it's utterly foolish to think there is no legitimacy to that argument and frankly I think anyone who actually wants to play a game like Manhunt should reexamine their attitude about violence in the first place. I'd stay away from anything that glorifies violence that way, whether it's a video game or a movie or anything else, and it's not because I think it will influence me to do something, it's because it simply makes me sick to look at or think about. It ought to do the same with you; if it doesn't there's something wrong with you.

Videogames don't make kids and teen go nuts, pent up sexual frustration does, get your kid some porn and lube and tell him to fuck/jack off.

If people play games just for the violent content, they should seek some help. These games are all about violence, but if you've played the games, then you know that the storyline has everything to do with they violence the characters perform.
GTA is a perfect example, each main character in the series wants to leave the crime life and start new, but their pasts always comeback to make them do otherwise.
Manhunt is the same. Yes you're playing the part of a psychopathic killer, but the circumstances to the reason why you must kill are there - Reality TV going too far.
I see these games as modern, mature versions of morality tales like the fairy tales of the past. The difference is that now, they deal with today's topics.
Besides, these games are meant for older audiences, not kids who's parents should be monitoring their games like they do with T.V and movies.

I see violence in Video Games as an outlet for stress and whatnot, and as an alternative instead of wrecking havoc in reality.

It's rated M for a reason.

Actually, it's worse then that. The ESRB announced that they gave Manhunt 2 a AO rating which Rockstar games has confirmed.
http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=16075
What the AO or Adult Only rating means to Manhunt 2 is that the game in it's current incarnation will not be sold in most Retail stores. Now I have seen clips and gameplay footage for Manhunt 2 and honestly I fail to see how its' violence level is any different to any other violent game out there, except perhaps in presentation. However, even that is doubtful since Hitman is also known for its use anything as a weapon system and for some bizarre and gruesome images. I guessing that the focus then is that Manhunt 2 has some depictions of sex in it. Ok fine. however R rated movies can some depictions of sex and not get slapped with an NC-17 rating. It all depends on the presentation of it. Video Games seem to be held to a different standard of rules than movies since Video games have always in the past been associated with children which I think is unfair. The Mario generation is grown up now and I think some of the games need to as well. But back to Manhunt 2, I think the ESRB just has a personal vendetta against Rockstar Games. But that's just my personal opinion.

I forgot to ask. Is this for PS2?

It's for the PS2, the PSP, and the Wii

i used to play wolfenstein for hours and i never felt like shooting people afterwards. so yeah violence is fine with me.


-

Good.
Then I don't have to worry about finding it if I can just torrent it.

Vilence in video games is the reason for Cancer, AIDS, Homosexulaity, The Bush Administration, and 0.99 deals that cost $5 with tax and shipping.

Seriously though, if people are dumb enough to act on what they see in vidoe games then.. i dunno, dont play or something. As far as some games; like Manhunt, i dont think there is much a reason for that much Vilence/gore.
[perhaps in the graphic way its presented]

Violence is natural in this world, look at what George W is doing to it.

I personally am not violent after playing doom or any fighting game, and i dont believe any of these kids commiting crimes are affected by 'video games'.

its just easy for the victims of those or the people making a fuss about the crimes to point there finger at video games, its an easy target, and its bullshit

Hi, guys. I'm Superman. *jumps out window* Oh crap.

Man, violence in video games...wait...violence IRL. I wish these people would learn that it's just a game not to be taken seriously and that they should work more to prevent real life violence. Sure, maybe preventing violence in video games is a step towards that, but there are other more serious representations of violence and one cannot prevent a mental case from snapping one day for no reason at all.

Also the ESRB rating are there for a reason. Blame yourself if your child gets an M rated game and starts cussing you out.

If people play games just for the violent content, they should seek some help. These games are all about violence, but if you've played the games, then you know that the storyline has everything to do with they violence the characters perform.
GTA is a perfect example, each main character in the series wants to leave the crime life and start new, but their pasts always comeback to make them do otherwise.
Manhunt is the same. Yes you're playing the part of a psychopathic killer, but the circumstances to the reason why you must kill are there - Reality TV going too far.
I see these games as modern, mature versions of morality tales like the fairy tales of the past. The difference is that now, they deal with today's topics.
Besides, these games are meant for older audiences, not kids who's parents should be monitoring their games like they do with T.V and movies.

You can make up circumstances for anything. Obviously the point of the game is not to criticize reality TV, and even if it was, it could easily do so without including the brutality. The point of the game is for people to enjoy extreme graphic violence, and the setting is an excuse for it. You'd really have to be insane to suggest someone thought, "hey, let's create a game about reality TV going too far... and just for the heck of it, let's throw in the most extreme violence we can and reward the player for murder!"

Again, I'm not suggesting the game be banned, more that it's sickening how many people are oh so desperate to stand up for murder porn just because they like video games and think they have some kind of personal obligation to defend them against what they percieve to be a bunch of irrational soccer moms.


Actually, it's worse then that. The ESRB announced that they gave Manhunt 2 a AO rating which Rockstar games has confirmed.
http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=16075
What the AO or Adult Only rating means to Manhunt 2 is that the game in it's current incarnation will not be sold in most Retail stores. Now I have seen clips and gameplay footage for Manhunt 2 and honestly I fail to see how its' violence level is any different to any other violent game out there, except perhaps in presentation. However, even that is doubtful since Hitman is also known for its use anything as a weapon system and for some bizarre and gruesome images. I guessing that the focus then is that Manhunt 2 has some depictions of sex in it. Ok fine. however R rated movies can some depictions of sex and not get slapped with an NC-17 rating. It all depends on the presentation of it. Video Games seem to be held to a different standard of rules than movies since Video games have always in the past been associated with children which I think is unfair. The Mario generation is grown up now and I think some of the games need to as well. But back to Manhunt 2, I think the ESRB just has a personal vendetta against Rockstar Games. But that's just my personal opinion.

The reason why Manhunt 2 got the rating it did, according to the ESRB, isn't just the level of violence displayed, but the way the game rewards, encourages, and makes light of ruthless killing. Supposedly it is beyond what any other game has done. I haven't played or seen the game so I can't comment on this, and anyway I wouldn't be able to compare it to the other top contenders since I probably haven't played/seen them anyway. But what really irks me about this post is the idea that violence is somehow "grown up." That taking pleasure in a game that rewards you for murder is a mature, adult thing to do, whereas a game like Mario is childish. I'm sure you're going to reply to this saying that's not what you mean, but it's clearly the theory you're operating under based on this post.

Adults should find games like Manhunt more repulsive than anyone else does. Oh, and why shouldn't the ESRB have something against Rockstar? They have gotten rich by making violence cool. I sure as hell have something against Rockstar and would just as soon see an angry mob burning their HQ to the ground.

Banning manhunt 2 for violence is wrong. They should just slap a 18+ label on it and slap the fuck out of any parents who buys it for their kids.

The reason why Manhunt 2 got the rating it did, according to the ESRB, isn't just the level of violence displayed, but the way the game rewards, encourages, and makes light of ruthless killing. Supposedly it is beyond what any other game has done. I haven't played or seen the game so I can't comment on this, and anyway I wouldn't be able to compare it to the other top contenders since I probably haven't played/seen them anyway. But what really irks me about this post is the idea that violence is somehow "grown up." That taking pleasure in a game that rewards you for murder is a mature, adult thing to do, whereas a game like Mario is childish. I'm sure you're going to reply to this saying that's not what you mean, but it's clearly the theory you're operating under based on this post.

Adults should find games like Manhunt more repulsive than anyone else does. Oh, and why shouldn't the ESRB have something against Rockstar? They have gotten rich by making violence cool. I sure as hell have something against Rockstar and would just as soon see an angry mob burning their HQ to the ground.
Hmm. So the reason for Manhunt 2's rating has nothing to do with its sexual content mixed in with the graphic violence? Sorry, it's just the article seemed to be painting that picture when they explained one of the murder scenes happening while a porno film can be seen in the background and other raunchy stuff like that.

For what I can remember from the original Manhunt, you were a killer sentenced to death row. Instead of getting a lethal injection you were give a sedative. after coming to you hear the voice of the "Director", who is like this former Hollywood director who is filthy rich and runs this town where you spend most of the game in. any you're given a second chance at life by running through the town as psycho street gangs are set against you and you have to kill your way through them as the whole thing is being recorded for snuff films. So it's a bizarre fight for your survival and there was a reason for you killing people. Now if Manhunt 2 is a different story plot wise then it's a different story. I was commenting on a demo that I saw a video for a E3 that didn't look that much different to the first Manhunt.

As for the grown up comment, yeah, Looking at how I posted it, I realize that it was a mistake on my part to say it like that and I apologize. You're right that Violence is not a sign of maturity at all since it exist in all stages of our lives. Nor should being rewarded for merciless killing be a sign of maturity ether. I think would I should have said in this statement was as we get older our understanding of violence gets better. (well at least it should anyway) We understand that violence is bad and people who act out in violence towards anyone and kill them out of anger or for any other base desire, cannot function in normal society and would be labled psychotic. We also understand the we do have a primitive side and that violence stems from our primal instincts for survival that we don't need nearly as much as we used to and so we turn to outlets to vent this out so we don't just explode into violence one day and hurt or kill someone that we shouldn't have and usually didn't really mean to. One such outlet is of course, videogames.

Anyway, maturity for games should be rated by the content and the themes presented, not by violence level. Going out in a fantasy land and rescuing the princess from an evil tyrant lizard and saving the day is the type of Fariy tales that we hear as children that would inspire us to go out b, be strong, and stand up for what's right, While a warrior who has to deal with the loss of comrades, feelings for other character that he knows he should have but are still there regardless are issues that we deal with later on in our lives. Sice this has nothing to do with Manhunt, I should have never made the Mario grown up comparison. Again I apologize and I understand that what's done is done, Hence the reason I wanted to take responsibility for my actions and attempt to correct my mistakes.

In all honesty I have never played Manhunt, I only watched my friend play Manhunt so my view on the Series is from a spectators point of view. Take my opinions of the game with a grain of salt because thats about all it's realy worth. I have no real opinion for Rockstar except for the fact that they only released a couple of games that I would want to sit down and play. As for the the ESRB grudge comment, I was simply state that they seemed to have a grudge against Rockstar and that it. If it seemed that I was implying something beyond that, it was not my intention to do so.

I didn't say the rating has "nothing to do with" those things, I was explaining the difference between it and other games that got an M rating (or at least the one that is described by the ESRB).

I find it odd that you would point to a "reason" for killing people in the first Manhunt. Personally I don't even approve of it when the "reason" is something like "defeating terrorists," but in this case the reason is "a TV man will let you have your own life (which you have spent killing people) if you kill a bunch of people!" Is this really a good reason to be killing people? I think my point about the purpose of the game still stands. The purpose is to revel in violence and death. The "plot," which from the sound of it has all the depth of every other porno plot I've ever heard of, is there as an excuse... just like in all pornography.

Anyway I understand about the Mario comment and don't worry, I don't take it as you really believing that interest in violence is a sign of maturity. But I do think it's symptomatic of a subconscious feeling people have that they often are not aware of, and it's really just like anything else that we've been influenced to believe by all the media around us. Unfortunately we are told that violence is cool (for grown-ups!...<font size=1>alsokidsifwemakemoremoneybutnotreally</font>) and makes us mature and grown up.

"... I thought violent video games were supposed to make him aggressive [to keep him from being a wuss]..." - Hank Hill

King of the hill for the win.

It's in the human nature to destroy ourselves and because of that, we find entertainment through many things including violence. Think bank in the gladiator days (damn good movie). They are to kill for the entertainment of the people. Although now it's not as extreme as that. We have boxing, UFC, martial art fighting, etc. and is all supervised now. Video games are something similar to that. It plays with our primal instinct to kill and it satisfies us (especially since we're not really killing except in the game) and we find it fun. Anyone not in their right mind will find it fun to kill whether they touched a violent video game or not. But I don't believe that a video game such as Manhunt will lead people to kill. The reason why we get pumped usually after a fighting game or anything with violence in it is due to adrenaline. It's the excitement that we're feeling that causes the secretion of it and that happens in a lot of different kinds of exciting situations.

You know once I played VC and went on a killing spree cuz bored, and I stuck up some guy and he said, "please don't kill me I have a wife and kids", I let him live. I just felt weird after that.

It's in the human nature to destroy ourselves

This is a horribly unsubstantiated argument.


and because of that, we find entertainment through many things including violence. Think bank in the gladiator days (damn good movie). They are to kill for the entertainment of the people. Although now it's not as extreme as that. We have boxing, UFC, martial art fighting, etc. and is all supervised now. Video games are something similar to that. It plays with our primal instinct to kill and it satisfies us (especially since we're not really killing except in the game) and we find it fun. Anyone not in their right mind will find it fun to kill whether they touched a violent video game or not. But I don't believe that a video game such as Manhunt will lead people to kill.

No one is suggesting that a game such as Manhunt, all by itself, will lead a person to kill, as I have already pointed out. That is an ignorant generalization I see time and time again amongst people who do not understand the issue they are arguing about.


The reason why we get pumped usually after a fighting game or anything with violence in it is due to adrenaline. It's the excitement that we're feeling that causes the secretion of it and that happens in a lot of different kinds of exciting situations.

You know, call me crazy, but I don't get particularly "pumped" after playing a fighting game. I feel pretty much the same way I'd feel playing pool, or air hockey, or anything else that involves competition. Basically... I'd feel competitive. Not really a huge amount of adrenaline, though. Enjoying something for its violence is a totally different issue, and I think it's rare that people play fighting games for the violence because they are so incredibly dependent on the precision and skill of the player; there's no time to sit back and enjoy the thrill of the kill. That's why games like Manhunt exist, which are not nearly as skill-intensive as fighters.

And regardless of whether there really is a "primal instinct" in people that makes them enjoy killing—an argument I find highly questionable and that you have provided absolutely no support for—that does not mean it is morally acceptable to entertain it. Assuming you, like the vast majority of people, find brutality and killing objectionable, you should be in no hurry to play a game or do anything else that encourages enjoyment of these things. And if you are in a hurry... well, you are one of the disturbed individuals you referenced above.

VIDEO GAMES HAVE MADE ME EVIL

I AM GOING TO SUE NINTENDO

THEY TAUGHT ME THAT KILLING TURTLES IS A FUN HOBBY AND THAT IS WRONG EVERYBODY

Well, after playing GTA I've never had the urge to run drugs, shoot cops and steal cars. After playing any number of RPG's I've never wanted to invade a creatures home and keep killing them until I grew stronger. In fact in all seriousness in real life I have a distaste for guns. Now don't take me wrong here its just a personal preference I do still support the right to own them.

I play violent games, and I am violent.

Maybe that is why I like them.


�Que?

I did a paper on this back in high school. I had to defend my arguement to the best of my ability and this is just some stupid aspect that psychologists and politicians like to complain about and just bring down the medium. It looks like Manhunt 2 will still come out in the US but just in Europe it got banned. Rockstar did develop a version of Manhunt 2 with different endings based on certain stats in the game. The ESRB has yet to rate that one. That was said about a month or two ago so it's a bit of old news.

Well, after playing GTA I've never had the urge to run drugs, shoot cops and steal cars. After playing any number of RPG's I've never wanted to invade a creatures home and keep killing them until I grew stronger. In fact in all seriousness in real life I have a distaste for guns. Now don't take me wrong here its just a personal preference I do still support the right to own them.
I feel the same way. It's for protection (even though guns were meant for killing). I don't like guns and I honestly hate fighting. When I was younger, I used to get in all sorts of trouble, but now I'm all grown up and hate it. I'll only fight if I have to or if I'm in a tournament (I find that fun because I want to see how good my skills are compared to my opponent. It's all fun and games in that category).

I hate violence in the real world, but when it comes to video games I could care less because I don't believe that video games are the reason why people are violent.

I hate violence in the real world, but when it comes to video games I could care less because I don't believe that video games are the reason why people are violent.


I dont' think it could have been said any better than that.

There really are better representations of violence in the world than video games, its sad that only gamers really believe this, only non-gamers are the ones starting all this horse sh*t.

So you are readily saying "only gamers" are the ones starting this "horse shit," and yet you don't think there's anything wrong with this picture?

You cannot disprove that violent video games do negatively affect some people's minds. Nongamers have experienced this through observation or up close and personal when they receive the bullet or blade. It's the few that ruin it for the rest of us, regardless of whether they're psychos or not.

If they're sense of right and wrong are somewhat distorted and by playing a game makes them violent, then it's not the video game but the person. They can see a violent movie and it will end up with the same effect on that person. It all depends on the lifestyle of the individual, how they grew up, their own personal problems, etc. You can't deny that video games are the only reason for this. The person is the one making decisions, not the game or any other individual.

You can't deny that video games are the only reason for this.

Quoted in case of edit.

I have yet to review any credible source that proves exposure to violent videogames causes violent behavior - if I recall correctly, they have only shown correlation at best. Even if it did, that is hardly reason to make it a law. Why don't we outlaw fastfood just because it's giving people heart attacks? Furthermore, because the U.S. has a 1st amendment, the videogames cannot legally be banned here (that doesn't mean people won't try anyways.)

Quoted in case of edit.

HOW DOES THIS FEEL TK? I AM QUOTING YOU IN CASE YOU EDIT, MAN!

THE WORLD SHALL FEEL THE MIGHTY POWER OF

Dragonite would be better as a penguin imo

I have yet to review any credible source that proves exposure to violent videogames causes violent behavior - if I recall correctly, they have only shown correlation at best. Even if it did, that is hardly reason to make it a law. Why don't we outlaw fastfood just because it's giving people heart attacks? Furthermore, because the U.S. has a 1st amendment, the videogames cannot legally be banned here (that doesn't mean people won't try anyways.)
Not that violent videogames directly cause violent behavior, it influences the individual negatively or even positively depending on the individual's nature and upbringing. You don't need a sociological analysis or national census to tell you that not everyone's upbringing is perfect, and not everyone is immune to violent behavior. And in reference to the thread-starter's statement, the public likes to blame other people and things so they don't have to admit that they have collectively made a mistake. Parents who blame violent videogames for their children's (or other children's) violent behavior(s) should try and do a better job teaching their children good judgemnt in discerning right from wrong and what not.

My parents knew what they were doing when they raised me (more or less =P ), and they know they raised me properly so I don't become a serial killer or thug or something. They don't mind me playing violent videogames because they know that I know that killing people is wrong. (I am not a soldier, nor will I ever be, so don't give me the war argument.) Despite my early exposure to killing and guns (DooM), I remain docile and generally unwilling to become offensive. I have little tolerance for getting pushed around in real life though, then I can become offensive or even violent very quickly. =o Violence is defeinitely in my nature. (My dad and his fourteen siblings were very, very violent as children, sometimes calling themselves "savage like Aztecs," lawlz)

My little sister played Mario a few times. She started jumping on my head. I think she wants to kill me.

Banning manhunt 2 for violence is wrong. They should just slap a 18+ label on it and slap the fuck out of any parents who buys it for their kids.

too right, I've seen it in shops where a mother gets told that the game shes about to buy for her 10 year old is 18 rated and full of violence, and doesnt even bat an eyelid, just buys the game for the little shit

My point was, I've never heard of any cases were video games wanted to make people go out and kill because there playing a violent video game, my main point was - there are greater forms of violence out there influencing people. Pretty Simple.

I hate violence in the real world, but when it comes to video games I could care less because I don't believe that video games are the reason why people are violent.

I'm just like thta. I don't like violence in the real world.But if there's these Boy Scouts who want some kick in their asses,they have it.But i still don't like it much real.Videogames exist for you doing things you can't in reality.That's why it exists comics,movies and other stuff,just to keep you off this monotone capitalist reality.

There is a lot of bullshit being sputtered in this thread. It's to the point where I'd have to give up the better part of my evening to comment on it all, which I really do not feel like doing. That said, I do have a bit to say on the topic all the same.

Anyone attempting to use "it is human nature", "it is ok because it satisfies our primal urges", or any variation of that argument is a fucking moron. Personally, I think "human nature" has changed over the millions of years in which we have been evolving. Organisms adapt and change to fit their environment, behaviors that aided survival in past generations are discarded as they become useless, and new behaviors are added to help the organism better adapt to its current needs. This alone could easily rule out the human nature argument. However, I really don't feel like spending time to find sources to back up my train of thought. Therefore, I will start from the standpoint that human nature has not changed for millions upon millions of years (which I do not agree with for a moment, but it is the starting point of those that claim it is deeply ingrained in humans to kill).

It is not in "human nature" to kill simply to kill. In fact, it is not in the nature of ANY living being to kill simply to kill. That is dangerous, it would cause the human (or animal, or plant, or whatever) to risk harm to itself for an act that will not aid it in any way. In order for an organism to be driven to kill there has to be a reason, be it food, shelter, defense, or any other valid reason. However, every single reason for killing all comes back to survival. The ultimate goal of any living being is to keep living. Therefore, to go back to my main point, killing simply to kill is actually counter to what is seen as our "primal urges" because it DOES put the human doing the killing in danger. Anything could go wrong and end up harming the human, or actually getting the human killed instead. Again, we do not kill simply to kill, and killing is not a primal urge, or even able to be considered a primal instinct. Also, again, anyone who believes otherwise is, in fact, a fucking moron.

Also, I don't understand how anyone can even begin to make the argument that violence is acceptable ever, under any circumstance short of self defense or prevention of an atrocity (both of which are instances that are relative). I've yet to see a single argument in this entire thread that I read and am like, "Gee, now THERE is a valid reason why it is AOK to play a game in which I blow someone's head off with a shotgun". On that same note, I highly doubt I ever WILL see an argument that makes sense...

That's all I'm going to say for now, even though there is so much more stupid in this thread that needs pointing out.

There is a lot of bullshit being sputtered in this thread. It's to the point where I'd have to give up the better part of my evening to comment on it all, which I really do not feel like doing. That said, I do have a bit to say on the topic all the same.

Anyone attempting to use "it is human nature", "it is ok because it satisfies our primal urges", or any variation of that argument is a fucking moron. Personally, I think "human nature" has changed over the millions of years in which we have been evolving. Organisms adapt and change to fit their environment, behaviors that aided survival in past generations are discarded as they become useless, and new behaviors are added to help the organism better adapt to its current needs. This alone could easily rule out the human nature argument. However, I really don't feel like spending time to find sources to back up my train of thought. Therefore, I will start from the standpoint that human nature has not changed for millions upon millions of years (which I do not agree with for a moment, but it is the starting point of those that claim it is deeply ingrained in humans to kill).

It is not in "human nature" to kill simply to kill. In fact, it is not in the nature of ANY living being to kill simply to kill. That is dangerous, it would cause the human (or animal, or plant, or whatever) to risk harm to itself for an act that will not aid it in any way. In order for an organism to be driven to kill there has to be a reason, be it food, shelter, defense, or any other valid reason. However, every single reason for killing all comes back to survival. The ultimate goal of any living being is to keep living. Therefore, to go back to my main point, killing simply to kill is actually counter to what is seen as our "primal urges" because it DOES put the human doing the killing in danger. Anything could go wrong and end up harming the human, or actually getting the human killed instead. Again, we do not kill simply to kill, and killing is not a primal urge, or even able to be considered a primal instinct. Also, again, anyone who believes otherwise is, in fact, a fucking moron.

Also, I don't understand how anyone can even begin to make the argument that violence is acceptable ever, under any circumstance short of self defense or prevention of an atrocity (both of which are instances that are relative). I've yet to see a single argument in this entire thread that I read and am like, "Gee, now THERE is a valid reason why it is AOK to play a game in which I blow someone's head off with a shotgun". On that same note, I highly doubt I ever WILL see an argument that makes sense...

That's all I'm going to say for now, even though there is so much more stupid in this thread that needs pointing out.
I agree that it's stupid to use human nature, and violence as an outlet as excuses. But I don't agree with your point about human nature changing. Just look at the popularity of MMA fights. Boxing has plumetted in favor for the more brutal MMA fights. On another point look at the popularity of Girls Gone Wild. We're a long ways away from the "values" of the past. As a matter of fact, the 60's weren't as bad, and they used drugs that weren't as illegally enforced like today. My point that our human nature hasn't really changed only the outlook of it.

as for the original topic, I see it this way. People should play a game first before they criticize its violent content. There's a reason why main characters use such violence. Look at Manhunt. You're a serial killer who was supposed to be executed, only to have a producer smuggle you out and put you in a city full of maniacs in a reality show. It's pretty much a parody of society, and how far we're willing to go for entertainment and ratings. I don't know about you guys, but all these stories have smart morality tales within all the gratuitous violence.

surely the resurgence of something more violent shows that human nature can and does change? it would have to decline and become disapproved of in the first place to resurge!

human nature is simply what you have grown accustomed to. it is a common, boring and lazy non-argument to say "well that's just the way people are, anyone who advocates a different approach is only fooling themselves!", when the sheer variety of different cultural norms flies in the face of that line of reasoning. afaics.

I agree that it's stupid to use human nature, and violence as an outlet as excuses. But I don't agree with your point about human nature changing. Just look at the popularity of MMA fights. Boxing has plumetted in favor for the more brutal MMA fights.

I think that has more to do with competition than it does with humans having some sort of innate drive to be violent. MMA is far stiffer competition, and much more popular world-wide because a number of different types of fighters can take part in it. However, it is contained, and treated as a sport. People don't just randomly decide to start fighting on the street for no reason at all. I'd say that it is human nature to compete, and fighting happens to be one of the ways in which we compete, but it is not human nature to simply fight for no reason.


On another point look at the popularity of Girls Gone Wild.

I'm not exactly following what that has to do with what we're talking about. Mind explaining?


We're a long ways away from the "values" of the past. As a matter of fact, the 60's weren't as bad, and they used drugs that weren't as illegally enforced like today. My point that our human nature hasn't really changed only the outlook of it.

As I said, I would disagree that human nature has not changed. However, I've never argued from that standpoint in this thread. I'd basically be putting the cart before the horse if I were, as we've just started trying to determine what exactly "human nature" is in this thread, let alone if it has changed over time.


as for the original topic, I see it this way. People should play a game first before they criticize its violent content.

Why? I don't need to shoot a gun at someone before I know I don't like the idea of it. Yes, I realize it's a video game, but I'm still pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.


There's a reason why main characters use such violence. Look at Manhunt. You're a serial killer who was supposed to be executed, only to have a producer smuggle you out and put you in a city full of maniacs in a reality show. It's pretty much a parody of society, and how far we're willing to go for entertainment and ratings. I don't know about you guys, but all these stories have smart morality tales within all the gratuitous violence.

How in the world is a game like that a parody of society? Also, if the entire game is just a lesson on morality why is it being taught in a manner that requires you to slaughter a bunch of people? I could think of any number of other ways to get morality lessons across that don't involve me blowing some guy's head off with a gun.

I have always enjoyed violent violent videogames, and maybe, unbeknownst to me, exposure to them over the years has somewhat desensitized me to things happening in the real world. I'm the first to admit that.

I feel that seeing on the news how some guys bursts into a church and shoots up the place, killing people and whatnot doesn't catch my attention as it should. The most it gets is a casual "what a shame". I do think violent videogames have something to do with this, but then again, so do violent films.

I can say I enjoy violence in a videogame, but I'd never take it so far as to imitate what I see or do in it. That's just stupid. I'm not mentally unbalanced, nor do I display any kind of abnormal behaviour ( I have the documents to prove it) and I'm still exposed to violent media everyday of my life.

I don't know if rating the game will do anything in the long run. I'm old enough to get it without any type of problems but I'm sure I could get it just the same 10 years ago and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

Not every sales clerk enforces the law regarding ratings, there are parents who frankly don't give a damn what videogames their kids play, and so on so on.

I don't actually approve ratings; I feel that a parent should be the judge of their child's maturity and if they are ready to get their hands on whatever it is they want, not anyone else.

DISCLAIMER: I'm largely simply going off on my own tangent, in response to the first, original post at the beginning of thread, expressing my thoughts on the subject in general.

Violence has long been around before video-games; you can't solely blame video-games for the flaws inherent in our world and society.

But, if we wanted to ban violence, why stop with video-games? How's about sports? Especially football, hockey, or tch, boxing and wrestling?

Then, for the religious zealots complaining about violence, what about The Bible? It's chalk full of bloody accounts, of wars, and kings having people killed on a simple bloodthirsty whim. More than half of the people who claim to preach its values have never even read it before! (I'm not so skeptical of the doctrine as I am of those who claim to believe it, or teach it).

The ideology or mentality of "Ignore it and it'll just go away" doesn't work. We need to know what violence is, and how horrible it can be. We need to see movies like Private Ryan, because it should convince us never to wage war unless we absolutely need to. We need to know what violence is, so we can prevent our civilization from degrading to such savagery.

Still, on some level, people love violence, and for some, fictitious violence is enough to satisfy such urges. And that's why we must never lose concept of what violence is, as opposed to just blocking it out of the picture.

The ideology or mentality of "Ignore it and it'll just go away" doesn't work. We need to know what violence is, and how horrible it can be. We need to see movies like Private Ryan, because it should convince us never to wage war unless we absolutely need to. We need to know what violence is, so we can prevent our civilization from degrading to such savagery.

Still, on some level, people love violence, and for some, fictitious violence is enough to satisfy such urges. And that's why we must never lose concept of what violence is, as opposed to just blocking it out of the picture.

Quoted for truth.

I suppose that simply reading from a article discouraging violence may not convey the gravity of discouraging violence to many, as opposed to simply showing a game with widespread, graphic carnage and whatnot in order to etch that lesson into people's mind. It's not what you say that makes the difference, rather It's how you say it, too. I guess it's up to one's interpretation, honestly, whether or not they can establish a link to that appropriate 'lesson' in a game and somehow learn from it for the betterment of society, or instead be oblivious to it, and basically think otherwise.

Violence has long been around before video-games; you can't solely blame video-games for the flaws inherent in our world and society.

You're right, you can't. I really don't thinking anyone is. However, I'd be willing to play devil's advocate and say that video game violence is becoming a flaw that is inherent in our society.


But, if we wanted to ban violence, why stop with video-games? How's about sports? Especially football, hockey, or tch, boxing and wrestling?

I'm pretty sure that no one is saying violence should be banned, or whatever you seem to have gotten from the posts in this thread. I can't speak for everyone, but my personal standpoint has always been that there has to be a cutoff line somewhere. I get the feeling that the point you're trying to make has to do with how it's not only difficult to determine what a "cutoff point" is, and even more difficulty to determine when a game crosses it, but that doesn't mean there should not be one.


Then, for the religious zealots complaining about violence, what about The Bible? It's chalk full of bloody accounts, of wars, and kings having people killed on a simple bloodthirsty whim. More than half of the people who claim to preach its values have never even read it before! (I'm not so skeptical of the doctrine as I am of those who claim to believe it, or teach it).

I'm confused. Did I miss someone mentioning the bible in this thread, or do you have an agenda?


The ideology or mentality of "Ignore it and it'll just go away" doesn't work. We need to know what violence is, and how horrible it can be. We need to see movies like Private Ryan, because it should convince us never to wage war unless we absolutely need to. We need to know what violence is, so we can prevent our civilization from degrading to such savagery.

I'm pretty sure no one has taken the standpoint of "ignore it and it will go away" in this thread. Also, I think it's pretty silly to use the argument that people need to be aware of violence in order to support needless violence in video games. All I need is a scratch to know I don't like pain and don't want to be hurt. I don't need someone to come along and break my arm to get the point across.

Again, no one is saying there should be no violence at all, but it should not be left unchecked either. The major difference between a movie and a video game is that movies are a passive experience. In a video game the person playing the game is the one taking the gun, pulling the trigger, and doing the killing (or the person using whatever weapon and inflicting pain).


Still, on some level, people love violence, and for some, fictitious violence is enough to satisfy such urges. And that's why we must never lose concept of what violence is, as opposed to just blocking it out of the picture.

If you have an urge to have violence prevalent in your life, and need something to sedate that urge beyond your own desire not to have violence in your life, then I'd say the issue is more with you and not people in general.


Keep in mind I don't know if you were just going off on your own tangent or if you were actually replying to what had been previously said in this thread. Either way, I think you're pretty far off the mark.

Keep in mind I don't know if you were just going off on your own tangent or if you were actually replying to what had been previously said in this thread. Either way, I think you're pretty far off the mark.
I'm largely simply going off on my own tangent, in response to the first, original post at the beginning of thread, expressing my thoughts on the subject in general.

Simply put, my stance is that it's stupid to focus solely on video-games, when it comes to violence.


I'd be willing to play devil's advocate and say that video game violence is becoming a flaw that is inherent in our society.
WHOA, if you're being a Devil's Advocate by arguing AGAINST violence, how backwards is that?!


If you have an urge to have violence prevalent in your life, and need something to sedate that urge beyond your own desire not to have violence in your life, then I'd say the issue is more with you and not people in general.
On that point, I was trying to say that fictitious violence is better than real violence. I'd say we have less violence in today's society because people actually have productive, entertaining, or at least harmless outlets for such aggression.

Society has become more concerned with the social acceptability of violence, because, believe it or not, we're becoming more civilized. Hopefully, anyway. Columbines are rare occurrences; they're the exception, not the norm, and people are getting worried over something that may not even occur. It COULD occur. But will it? Doubtfully. Liberals tend to live in the hypothetical universe. The fault, when it does come to such strange circumstances, lies with people who don't know how to respect each other or live in peaceful co-existence, or otherwise outright refuse. Blaming it on some lifeless, inanimate factor is a cop-out.

It's people who take it too far. Video-games, if you ask me, are largely about heroism. And something, say, like football, is about glory, or honor, and all that good stuff, as do martial arts teach such values, along with self-defense. The Bible teaches humility, servitude, and peaceful co-existence. It's when someone chooses to imitate Doom, or when jocks start tackling nerds in the hallway, when martial arts are used for aggression and not protection, and when someone interprets The Bible to say that they're supposed to kill a certain group of people, that it gets all out of whack.

I've become increasingly worried, when you need to fork over an ID to buy certain video-games, as you would say, alcohol, tobacco, porn, or firearms, and as such, I fear video games will become degraded entertainment sold in the back of shady, hole-in-the-wall stores in run-down districts of large metropolitan areas. Well, that's an exaggeration, but video-games at least get a very bad rap these days.

To sum it up, I don't believe issuing any further constraints, or even those already in place, will do anything to reduce violence in society.

Not all violent people play video-games, not all video-games are violent. People who play violent video-games may play violent video-games because they're violent, but not all people who play violent video-games ARE violent.

...

As for Manhunt 2, psychologically speaking, I believe that it expresses human existence, or existence in general, as having to kill to live. I don't believe that it's glorifying it so much as making it look ugly. When the whole premise of the game is about reality TV about violence, I think they're pretty much saying, "Stop, listen, what's that sound? Everyone look what's goin' down!"

Then again, knowing Rockstar, the big rockstars that they are, are probably just trying to be provocative, and this gets people talking about their games and earns them free publicity.

(Damn. I could write a thesis on this stuff; too bad I'm not in Psychology).

I think that has more to do with competition than it does with humans having some sort of innate drive to be violent. MMA is far stiffer competition, and much more popular world-wide because a number of different types of fighters can take part in it. However, it is contained, and treated as a sport. People don't just randomly decide to start fighting on the street for no reason at all. I'd say that it is human nature to compete, and fighting happens to be one of the ways in which we compete, but it is not human nature to simply fight for no reason.I know this, I follow the sport. The majority of people however, don't, and simply follow it for the brutality. I know lots of people that are supposedly fans, but don't know the difference between any of the arts used by fighters. These are the same type of people that watch a boxing match, and woot every time they hear a fighter's punch even though it doesn't connect. Whenever you watch a boxing match, how many people do you hear hollering when blocked punches are made?

I'm not exactly following what that has to do with what we're talking about. Mind explaining?'Cause you mentioned human nature. Human nature is to procreate, defend and survive. I was merely pointing out the sexual aspect of human nature and how it hasn't changed, only the value of the outlook to it. If I haven't cleared it yet, just disregard it.


As I said, I would disagree that human nature has not changed. However, I've never argued from that standpoint in this thread. I'd basically be putting the cart before the horse if I were, as we've just started trying to determine what exactly "human nature" is in this thread, let alone if it has changed over time.Human nature hasn't changed, only the values we placed on it.




Why? I don't need to shoot a gun at someone before I know I don't like the idea of it. Yes, I realize it's a video game, but I'm still pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.If you choose to dislike a game because you don't like the violent aspect of it. That's fine, go right ahead. but don't go criticizing something you know absolutely nothing about. It's like how people criticized Bully because it supposedly "teaches" kids to be bullies, when in fact the story shows the complete opposite.

How in the world is a game like that a parody of society? Also, if the entire game is just a lesson on morality why is it being taught in a manner that requires you to slaughter a bunch of people? I could think of any number of other ways to get morality lessons across that don't involve me blowing some guy's head off with a gun.It's a parody about how networks have been coming out with more and more outragous premises for reality shows just to get ratings. If you can't see it, just look at all the reality shows that have come out. The majority of them are about sex with each being more risqu�. It's only a matter of time before some one comes out with a REAL survival type show.

Manhunt is basically "The Running Man" premise. A killer is set on the loose in a city overrun by maniacs who want to kill him, and the killer has no other choice but to kill or be killed.

This is pretty much the same argument people had about slasher movies. Each one has a morality tale within all the goriness.

Whenever I hear people complain about violence in video games, I laugh. People are okay with a game about a group of people killing magical creatures with swords and bows. But when games are based in a more real life setting, all of a sudden it's wrong. When I play a game - depending on the game, I see a story. It's No different than reading a book.

Another reason people complain is 'cause they view video games as toys for children, when in fact the vast majority of gamers are over 21. Mature Gamers = Mature Content.

Simply put, my stance is that it's stupid to focus solely on video-games, when it comes to violence.

Yes, but this thread is about video game violence, so we are talking about that aspect.


WHOA, if you're being a Devil's Advocate by arguing AGAINST violence, how backwards is that?!

I'm sure you've heard the term... and know what it means, so as the "worst side", and the reason it is such, for that particular argument is highly debatable I'll just assume that was sarcasm...


On that point, I was trying to say that fictitious violence is better than real violence. I'd say we have less violence in today's society because people actually have productive, entertaining, or at least harmless outlets for such aggression.

First, there are a number of other outlets that someone could use to get out their frustrations. It might just be me, but I really can't see how someone can argue that we NEED violent video games in order to not be violent... Also, saying fictitious violence is better than real violence is like saying bulimia is better than outright starvation.


Society has become more concerned with the social acceptability of violence, because, believe it or not, we're becoming more civilized. Hopefully, anyway.

As opposed to 40+ years ago when it was illegal to even show/hear a toilet flushing on tv? While I do think human nature as a whole has changed throughout history, I wouldn't go as far as to say we're any more or less civilized than we were when video games first came out. That's just a little bit too much of a stretch.


Columbines are rare occurrences; they're the exception, not the norm, and people are getting worried over something that may not even occur. It COULD occur. But will it? Doubtfully. Liberals tend to live in the hypothetical universe.

Please elaborate on the bold section of the quote. Also, because I just realized that "liberal" is relative, what country are you from?


The fault, when it does come to such strange circumstances, lies with people who don't know how to respect each other or live in peaceful co-existence, or otherwise outright refuse. Blaming it on some lifeless, inanimate factor is a cop-out.

I agree, it's stupid to blame a video game as the single cause for such violence. There are also many, many cases where video games are blamed when they have nothing to do with the situation at all. However, that's not what I've been saying. My entire stance has been "what is the need?" So far, no one has shown a valid reason for there to be needless violence in video games. I understand there will be some violence, and if it is for good purpose then fine. However, it does not need to be excessive.


I've become increasingly worried, when you need to fork over an ID to buy certain video-games, as you would say, alcohol, tobacco, porn, or firearms, and as such, I fear video games will become degraded entertainment sold in the back of shady, hole-in-the-wall stores in run-down districts of large metropolitan areas. Well, that's an exaggeration, but video-games at least get a very bad rap these days.

You need an ID to buy video games with adult content for the same reason you need an ID to enter a move with adult content. That being, among many, many other reasons, parents have the right to decide what their children see and do not see. If a parent does not have a problem with his or her child possessing a game with an Adult Only rating then fine. However, kids should not be able to have access to those games unless the parents are ok with it. I know it is still fairly easy for a kid to get a game if he or she really wants to, but having a rating system is better than nothing.

Keep in mind I haven't even mentioned maturity yet. I would hope that I don't even have to get into explaining why some games simply should not be in the hands of kids.


To sum it up, I don't believe issuing any further constraints, or even those already in place, will do anything to reduce violence in society.

I flat out disagree.


As for Manhunt 2, psychologically speaking, I believe that it expresses human existence, or existence in general, as having to kill to live. I don't believe that it's glorifying it so much as making it look ugly. When the whole premise of the game is about reality TV about violence, I think they're pretty much saying, "Stop, listen, what's that sound? Everyone look what's goin' down!"

Then again, knowing Rockstar, the big rockstars that they are, are probably just trying to be provocative, and this gets people talking about their games and earns them free publicity.

There are much better ways to get someone's attention than create a violent video game. If they are really honestly going for some deep philosophical meaning they sure devoted a lot of time coming up with ways to kill people...




I know this, I follow the sport. The majority of people however, don't, and simply follow it for the brutality. I know lots of people that are supposedly fans, but don't know the difference between any of the arts used by fighters. These are the same type of people that watch a boxing match, and woot every time they hear a fighter's punch even though it doesn't connect. Whenever you watch a boxing match, how many people do you hear hollering when blocked punches are made?

I don't think people being stupid and just rooting for violence necessarily proves that it is human nature to be violent. I'd be willing to put money on the vast majority of people either A) being informed viewers or B) being someone that is repulsed by the sport. Just because there is a number of idiots that fill up the events doesn't mean it is a fair take on the rest of society.


'Cause you mentioned human nature. Human nature is to procreate, defend and survive. I was merely pointing out the sexual aspect of human nature and how it hasn't changed, only the value of the outlook to it. If I haven't cleared it yet, just disregard it.

Well, there has always been a need/desire to procreate, and there will likely always be in order to ensure the survival of humans. However, violence is not needed for the continued survival of humans. Thinking back to my own experiences in violent video games, it seems more to be a mix between enjoying feeling dominate over whatever I happened to be shooting at/fighting or simply the desire to overcome a challenge. In my mind it is AOK to have violence in games, it just does not need to be excessive.


If you choose to dislike a game because you don't like the violent aspect of it. That's fine, go right ahead. but don't go criticizing something you know absolutely nothing about. It's like how people criticized Bully because it supposedly "teaches" kids to be bullies, when in fact the story shows the complete opposite.

If this is a general statement address to everyone, I agree. If it is addressed specifically to me, then I'll just say that I make it a point to learn about a game before I decide if I think it should be in the trash. I actually remember Bully coming out. I looked into it, read what it was actually about, and thought people were stupid for being up-in-arms. In the case of Manhunt 2, I knew nothing about the game, but people have summed it up in this thread, and I came to the conclusion that the game is just an attempt to push the envelope in order to generate sales.


It's a parody about how networks have been coming out with more and more outragous premises for reality shows just to get ratings. If you can't see it, just look at all the reality shows that have come out. The majority of them are about sex with each being more risqu�. It's only a matter of time before some one comes out with a REAL survival type show.

Personally, I think it is kind of counter-productive to try and comment on how one industry always tries to push a little further and be a little more risque by trying to push a little further and be a little more risque. If the designers really see a problem with the route that society is going, why are they joining in the same behavior?


Manhunt is basically "The Running Man" premise. A killer is set on the loose in a city overrun by maniacs who want to kill him, and the killer has no other choice but to kill or be killed.

Which is fine. It doesn't have to be horribly violent, though.


Whenever I hear people complain about violence in video games, I laugh. People are okay with a game about a group of people killing magical creatures with swords and bows. But when games are based in a more real life setting, all of a sudden it's wrong. When I play a game - depending on the game, I see a story. It's No different than reading a book.

The reason people complain is because children (even teenagers) are not always capable of processing what they see in the same ways an adult is. In fact, more often than not children ARE NOT able to process what they see in the same way. Also, you answered your own argument with "more real life settings". When video games push for more realism, then the violence WILL become more real to the viewer. With games that are starkly different than what we see today there is a much larger disconnect there. An adult can distinguish the difference regardless, but many children have more difficulty, hence ratings.


Another reason people complain is 'cause they view video games as toys for children, when in fact the vast majority of gamers are over 21. Mature Gamers = Mature Content.

Which leads to games with the Adult Only rating. However, I still do not see a need for excessively violent games.

Videogames don't make kids and teen go nuts, pent up sexual frustration does, get your kid some porn and lube and tell him to fuck/jack off.

Your a fucking genious

I don't think people being stupid and just rooting for violence necessarily proves that it is human nature to be violent. I'd be willing to put money on the vast majority of people either A) being informed viewers or B) being someone that is repulsed by the sport. Just because there is a number of idiots that fill up the events doesn't mean it is a fair take on the rest of society.
that's just at the event itself, we're not even mentioning Pay-per-view viewers. You have to remember, pop-culture is a mirror of society, hence the reason for the popularity.

Well, there has always been a need/desire to procreate, and there will likely always be in order to ensure the survival of humans. However, violence is not needed for the continued survival of humans. Thinking back to my own experiences in violent video games, it seems more to be a mix between enjoying feeling dominate over whatever I happened to be shooting at/fighting or simply the desire to overcome a challenge. In my mind it is AOK to have violence in games, it just does not need to be excessive.
If so, what was the need for Roman gladiator games, daredevils, bullfighting, animal fights, public executions, dueling, building implosions... I could go on. Never mind the severity, people enjoy the spectacle of violence. It's like the whole car crash scenario, people will do one of two things: cover their eyes/look away, OR view it head on. I'll admit, I'm a viewer - more of an observer of peoples' reactions toward violence. I've actually been in the middle of a "mini" riot, and walked around sipping a Starbucks drink like it was a normal day. I was amused watching people - who have never been in this type of situation - run around in an exaggerated reaction to a gunshot that occurred OUTSIDE the actual mall. I viewed a cop shoot someone at point blank range with a bean bag rifle 30ft away from me. My reaction was WTF! but I continued watching un-phased. I've saw people take out their cellphones, take snapshots and laugh, I saw girls cry histerically over a RUMOR of a gunfight. My point, people react to violence with amusement or horror. Amusement if it doesn't affect them directly, and Horror when there's a possibility that it can.

If this is a general statement address to everyone, I agree. If it is addressed specifically to me, then I'll just say that I make it a point to learn about a game before I decide if I think it should be in the trash. I actually remember Bully coming out. I looked into it, read what it was actually about, and thought people were stupid for being up-in-arms. In the case of Manhunt 2, I knew nothing about the game, but people have summed it up in this thread, and I came to the conclusion that the game is just an attempt to push the envelope in order to generate sales.
I also never knew anything about it, but after viewing the trailers (http://www.rockstargames.com/manhunt2/index2.html), the story is totally different than from the first one. As a matter of fact, it reminds me more of the first 2 Resident Evil games. I like the premise, and if you'd actually read up on it more, it explains the violence rather well. Don't go by other peoples' views, make the effort to see what the game's about for yourself.

Personally, I think it is kind of counter-productive to try and comment on how one industry always tries to push a little further and be a little more risque by trying to push a little further and be a little more risque. If the designers really see a problem with the route that society is going, why are they joining in the same behavior?
Video games - aside from simulators - for the most part are exaggerations. The recent GTA series presented real life events in an exaggerated representation. Vice City was an exaggeration of Miami in the '80s. San Andreas was a very good exaggeration of LA in the '90s - I lived in L.A my whole life. IV will be an exaggerated view of NY.
Anyways, much like fiction, games exaggerate stories as much or as little as possible to tell a story.

Which is fine. It doesn't have to be horribly violent, though.
It's horribly violent because the main character is a psychopathic killer. It's implied that you must kill brutally. Think of it as a slasher film. No one questions why the villains kill brutally, it's implied that they're insane.

The reason people complain is because children (even teenagers) are not always capable of processing what they see in the same ways an adult is. In fact, more often than not children ARE NOT able to process what they see in the same way. Also, you answered your own argument with "more real life settings". When video games push for more realism, then the violence WILL become more real to the viewer. With games that are starkly different than what we see today there is a much larger disconnect there. An adult can distinguish the difference regardless, but many children have more difficulty, hence ratings.
You also answered your own argument. These games are meant for older gamers 21+. Whos fault is it that a kid plays these games? I wouldn't want my niece and nephew playing these games, which is why I don't let them play - let alone watch - when I'm playing violent games. But once I believe that they can handle a violence, that's when I'll let them play.

Which leads to games with the Adult Only rating. However, I still do not see a need for excessively violent games.
I understand that there's an excess to violence, but I also know when games have a point for it's use with their storylines. Games are like books, movies, music, etc. It lets people view situations they otherwise would never be in. why do you think Gangsta Rap, and Gangsta Films got so popular? Because people who didn't live in the "Ghetto" got to know what gangstas were all about.

I see it this way. If you start censoring the amount of violence in games, what's next? Movies? Books? Art? ...etc.

Please elaborate on the bold section of the quote. Also, because I just realized that "liberal" is relative, what country are you from?
United States, of course. Where else in the world are you going to hear liberals whining about excessively trivial issues? It's true. Liberals largely focus on rare events that will hardly ever occur, or occur again, or are hardly even a problem to begin with. Which is strange, when most can't see past their noses, and must have every last law of the universe proven to them: "Wait! Gravity is just a theory! Leave this apple unsuspended in the air, and let's see if it drops to the floor!...okay, NOW you've proven the existence of gravity to me!...no, wait, let's try dropping it over the ground this time!" "Man, gravity is a proven law of science..." "Hmph, fine! I'll just go look it up myself!" Then again, most are simply trying to push political agendas, anyway, so of course they're at least going to feign stupidity/ignorance.

...

Rabid Monkey - I'm unclear as to whether you're opposed to violence in video-games, or whether you're simply playing Devil's Advocate and asking for a justification as to why violence in video-games is justified, that is to say, asking us to humor you for your scholaric edutainment.

Either way, you're going to be hard-pressed to find an answer or justification.

It's already been made clear that we have entirely different viewpoints on the issue, and that an agreement will never be reached, but let me say a last few things on the topic.

You may be right - video-game violence may be unnecessary - but no one has to play video-games, buy them, or make them, either, violent or not. It's a choice. A conscious choice that an individual makes, to play, buy, or make violent video-games, or to be violent in real-life. The responsibility lies with the individual.

Me, I choose not to be violent when I'm actually around flesh-and-blood people (or other living creatures), but you better believe I enjoy lighting it up on the screen. Then again, it's not so much a conscious choice not to be violent, as being violent is a conscious choice. It's not like I need to keep chanting to myself, "Okay, don't hit that person; don't slit that guy's throat; don't hold that guy up at gun point," nor do I ever need to tell myself, "Okay, calm down, just calm down."

For that matter, Japanese society is rather peaceful and law-abiding, yet, some of their video-games, and other forms of entertainment, most of which don't even reach our shores, are some of the most depraved things you can possibly see, without rational justification for such spectacles. Are the Japanese simply less impressionable, or are Americans more easily impressionable by fictitious entertainment?

No, it's an issue of courtesy, respect, and responsibility. Japanese life is more communal and united than American life; there's more sense of community, of beloningness, of responsibility and duty. For some time, American life might have been "Gee whiz swell" but its communal aspects have since declined with each decade.

Taking Columbine-like incidents, or more recently, incidents like Virginia Tech, as examples, the perpetrators of the crimes often feel distanced, if not neglected, outcast, or ostracized from their community, and consider their actions as justified revenge, and consider their victims responsible for the violence brought upon them. Since they don't feel part of the community, they feel no reason to take responsibility for it, and are able to kill their victims emotionlessly because they feel so distant from them.

Me, I can understand why those people acted as did, having formerly gone to high school and university. I never felt part of those communities because most of the people that comprised them treated me absolutely incorrigibly. And, of course, what did the authorities in charge do? I'm going to be honest with you and tell you - they profiled me as a shooter simply because they thought I fit the bill of previous shooters - I wasn't a particularly sociable person (at least, not to those people), and I was for the most part always by myself. Nevermind actually dealing with the people who were actually treating my incorrigibly, NO, we have to worry about me retaliating!

Those gunmen retaliated as they did because the authorities at large did absolutely nothing to help them. People take the law into their own hands when they see that no one out there is willing, or able, to help them. As for me, I just got the fuck out of those places.

Violence isn't the issue - it's responsibility. People who learn responsibility from an earlier age, and consequence for their actions, as is more common of European, Asian, and most non-American households, are more often brought up to be perfectly functional members of society, and thus less liable to be responsible for problems, let alone fall victim to others' problems.

that's just at the event itself, we're not even mentioning Pay-per-view viewers. You have to remember, pop-culture is a mirror of society, hence the reason for the popularity.

My point was that people as a whole will generally either disapprove of the fighting as a whole, or know enough about it to understand what they are actually seeing. Basically, I believe that if we were to take the population as a whole, the ones that are simply rooting for violence merely for the sake of violence would be the fast minority.


If so, what was the need for Roman gladiator games, daredevils, bullfighting, animal fights, public executions, dueling, building implosions... I could go on.

Those were completely different times. It's hard for me to say more without getting into how I think human nature has changed over time. However, back then war was a way of life, and something expected to happen. Now I think it's pretty safe to say most people don't EXPECT to end up in a huge war. However, if war is not part of your society, chances are you will not glorify violence. If anything, I'd say the reason we still have sanctioned fights as a sport is tradition in many ways, as well as purely for a competition to see who is best at knocking other people's brains out.


Never mind the severity, people enjoy the spectacle of violence. It's like the whole car crash scenario, people will do one of two things: cover their eyes/look away, OR view it head on. I'll admit, I'm a viewer - more of an observer of peoples' reactions toward violence. I've actually been in the middle of a "mini" riot, and walked around sipping a Starbucks drink like it was a normal day. I was amused watching people - who have never been in this type of situation - run around in an exaggerated reaction to a gunshot that occurred OUTSIDE the actual mall. I viewed a cop shoot someone at point blank range with a bean bag rifle 30ft away from me. My reaction was WTF! but I continued watching un-phased. I've saw people take out their cellphones, take snapshots and laugh, I saw girls cry histerically over a RUMOR of a gunfight. My point, people react to violence with amusement or horror. Amusement if it doesn't affect them directly, and Horror when there's a possibility that it can.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I pass a car accident I try to figure out exactly what happened and if people are ok. I'm not looking at it thinking "WHOA COOL A CAR ACCIDENT IF ONLY I HAD MY CAMERA!" The two reactions are completely different. Really, though, I don't see how any of that paragraph points to violence being part of some deep ingrained need for humans to be violent.


I also never knew anything about it, but after viewing the trailers (http://www.rockstargames.com/manhunt2/index2.html), the story is totally different than from the first one. As a matter of fact, it reminds me more of the first 2 Resident Evil games. I like the premise, and if you'd actually read up on it more, it explains the violence rather well. Don't go by other peoples' views, make the effort to see what the game's about for yourself.

I may. However, at this point I think the debate has moved beyond a single game, and where I will likely never have a desire to play a Manhunt game I likely won't check it out for at least quite a while.


Video games - aside from simulators - for the most part are exaggerations. The recent GTA series presented real life events in an exaggerated representation. Vice City was an exaggeration of Miami in the '80s. San Andreas was a very good exaggeration of LA in the '90s - I lived in L.A my whole life. IV will be an exaggerated view of NY.
Anyways, much like fiction, games exaggerate stories as much or as little as possible to tell a story.

I actually don't have any problems with the GTA games that I've played. I have the first one that came out for the PS2, had a lot of fun with it (though I never really got that far from what I remember). However, I do think I'll ever get one again, and I don't think anyone under the age of 17/18 should be playing them (I don't even know what the rating is). A lot of the violence isn't needed, and I'd much prefer games like GTA not be on the market, but the realism involved in it isn't to the point where it looks incredibly realistic or anything.


It's horribly violent because the main character is a psychopathic killer. It's implied that you must kill brutally. Think of it as a slasher film. No one questions why the villains kill brutally, it's implied that they're insane.

This pretty much confirms that it should have an AO rating. If a premise of a game is "you have to kill brutally because you are a psychopathic killer" I don't really see how you can argue against an AO rating.


You also answered your own argument. These games are meant for older gamers 21+. Whos fault is it that a kid plays these games? I wouldn't want my niece and nephew playing these games, which is why I don't let them play - let alone watch - when I'm playing violent games. But once I believe that they can handle a violence, that's when I'll let them play.

Oh I am in complete agreement that it is the family's fault for allowing their child to play the game. As I said, it is the level of realism involved and overall violence that determines for me if a game is appropriate for children, which I would hope is the same for most people. However, I think that either the violence in games is really starting to push a bit too far, or the AO rating needs to be used far more often. If the games are meant for people that are 21+ then they should have that rating, and that will be the end of it. Game companies will be able to make whatever game they want, and it is completely in the hands of the retailers and the parents to ensure kids don't play AO rated games.


I understand that there's an excess to violence, but I also know when games have a point for it's use with their storylines. Games are like books, movies, music, etc. It lets people view situations they otherwise would never be in. why do you think Gangsta Rap, and Gangsta Films got so popular? Because people who didn't live in the "Ghetto" got to know what gangstas were all about.

If you want my honest opinion on why some forms of music are popular I can sum it up with three words: people are stupid. That's not what we're talking about, though, so I'll move on...

Anyway, there is a difference between having violence in a game because it is important to the story and having a game based upon violence. Like I said before, I wouldn't have a huge issue with it if it were made harder for the games to get into the wrong hands. However, I will say that ultimately I personally do not see the need for excessively violent games.


I see it this way. If you start censoring the amount of violence in games, what's next? Movies? Books? Art? ...etc.

You can already do things in games that you'd never see in a movie or a work of art. However, in all of those cases, I still believe that reading it or viewing it is completely and utterly different than basically being what brings it about on the screen.




United States, of course. Where else in the world are you going to hear liberals whining about excessively trivial issues? It's true. Liberals largely focus on rare events that will hardly ever occur, or occur again, or are hardly even a problem to begin with. Which is strange, when most can't see past their noses, and must have every last law of the universe proven to them: "Wait! Gravity is just a theory! Leave this apple unsuspended in the air, and let's see if it drops to the floor!...okay, NOW you've proven the existence of gravity to me!...no, wait, let's try dropping it over the ground this time!" "Man, gravity is a proven law of science..." "Hmph, fine! I'll just go look it up myself!" Then again, most are simply trying to push political agendas, anyway, so of course they're at least going to feign stupidity/ignorance.

Oh, I see... you're one of THOSE people. It's not just one type of person that acts that way, bud. Don't let your personal political views (or whatever it is that caused you to spurt that) keep you from seeing that everyone does that. Both conservatives and liberals have their flaws. I don't think it's fair to say the behavior you described is specific to either one.


Rabid Monkey - I'm unclear as to whether you're opposed to violence in video-games, or whether you're simply playing Devil's Advocate and asking for a justification as to why violence in video-games is justified, that is to say, asking us to humor you for your scholaric edutainment.

Either way, you're going to be hard-pressed to find an answer or justification.

It's already been made clear that we have entirely different viewpoints on the issue, and that an agreement will never be reached, but let me say a last few things on the topic.

A little bit of both, to be honest. I don't have an all-encompassing view that violence in video games is wrong. I think it can be AOK. I do think that it can get pushed too far in some of the recent games. Though, like I said in my previous response to Vastalis, a more highly used (and enforced) AO rating would alleviate just about any argument people could make regarding violence in games. It would then become the retailer's and parent's job to ensure the game stays out of the wrong hands. Would people still get up in arms about violent games that push it just a tad bit too far? Yes. However, their arguments wouldn't be nearly as strong.

If you want my own personal views (which have changed over the years drastically), I really see no need for the level of violence we see in games today. However, I'm not going to be as arrogant as to try and tell people what they should and should not enjoy. I will say that people do need to be exceedingly careful with what they allow children to watch/play, though.


You may be right - video-game violence may be unnecessary - but no one has to play video-games, buy them, or make them, either, violent or not. It's a choice. A conscious choice that an individual makes, to play, buy, or make violent video-games, or to be violent in real-life. The responsibility lies with the individual.

Yes, but buying a violent video game needs to be an adult choice, just like watching a violent movie. Currently I think the ratings are a bit too lax. There almost needs to be something to the extent of "this game has been approved for the use of minors, but still requires an adult to actually buy the game for them". The reason being, when I'm a parent I'll want more control over what my child brings into the house than what parents have with video games now. If I found my child playing a game I didn't approve of I'd take it away, but if he or she is anything like me and my wife we'll never even know the kid has the blasted game to start with...

Anyway, major tangent there... hopefully I didn't go too far off.


For that matter, Japanese society is rather peaceful and law-abiding, yet, some of their video-games, and other forms of entertainment, most of which don't even reach our shores, are some of the most depraved things you can possibly see, without rational justification for such spectacles. Are the Japanese simply less impressionable, or are Americans more easily impressionable by fictitious entertainment?

I chalk that one up to different societies and different mindsets. However, they also made a celebrity out of a girl who sliced her friend's throat open in the hallway of their school for saying stuff about her on the internet. That said, I'm taking just about anything I hear having to do with Japanese culture with a grain of salt.


No, it's an issue of courtesy, respect, and responsibility. Japanese life is more communal and united than American life; there's more sense of community, of beloningness, of responsibility and duty. For some time, American life might have been "Gee whiz swell" but its communal aspects have since declined with each decade.

If you count "work until you drop with your college years being considered your only real vacation in life", then yeah, I suppose there is a greater sense of responsibility and duty. I'm not being sarcastic, that's what it's like there.


Taking Columbine-like incidents, or more recently, incidents like Virginia Tech, as examples, the perpetrators of the crimes often feel distanced, if not neglected, outcast, or ostracized from their community, and consider their actions as justified revenge, and consider their victims responsible for the violence brought upon them. Since they don't feel part of the community, they feel no reason to take responsibility for it, and are able to kill their victims emotionlessly because they feel so distant from them.

Me, I can understand why those people acted as did, having formerly gone to high school and university. I never felt part of those communities because most of the people that comprised them treated me absolutely incorrigibly. And, of course, what did the authorities in charge do? I'm going to be honest with you and tell you - they profiled me as a shooter simply because they thought I fit the bill of previous shooters - I wasn't a particularly sociable person (at least, not to those people), and I was for the most part always by myself. Nevermind actually dealing with the people who were actually treating my incorrigibly, NO, we have to worry about me retaliating!

Those gunmen retaliated as they did because the authorities at large did absolutely nothing to help them. People take the law into their own hands when they see that no one out there is willing, or able, to help them. As for me, I just got the fuck out of those places.

Violence isn't the issue - it's responsibility. People who learn responsibility from an earlier age, and consequence for their actions, as is more common of European, Asian, and most non-American households, are more often brought up to be perfectly functional members of society, and thus less liable to be responsible for problems, let alone fall victim to others' problems.

I don't see what any of that has to do with the discussion, to be honest. To be blunt, both my wife and myself were singled out as "possible Columbines" when it happened, but that has no baring on how I feel now. Also, I never really liked going to school or college either, but I'm not going to let it influence what I think is right and wrong as an adult. Kids go through a lot of shit growing up, yes, but what in the world does any of that have to do with what we are talking about?

Oh, I see... you're one of THOSE people. It's not just one type of person that acts that way, bud. Don't let your personal political views (or whatever it is that caused you to spurt that) keep you from seeing that everyone does that. Both conservatives and liberals have their flaws. I don't think it's fair to say the behavior you described is specific to either one.
I'm one of THOSE people? Pray tell, who are THOSE people? That statement has to be even more discriminating and presumptuous than anything I had to say.


If you count "work until you drop with your college years being considered your only real vacation in life", then yeah, I suppose there is a greater sense of responsibility and duty. I'm not being sarcastic, that's what it's like there.
I'm quite well aware what the Japanese life style is like, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about it. If you ask me, it's because so much more is expected of people in Japanese society that most are more well-disciplined than the average American. And I'm not talking about sports, but academia and personal conduct, stuff that's actually going to prove helpful in their future, as opposed to teaching the aggression that most athletics do.

...

Columbine is significant to the discussion of violent video-games because the two perpetrators were supposedly inspired by Doom to shoot up their school. That's when mainstream media began questioning video-game violence as a rule; that was back in 1999/2000. You could also argue that in began back in 1995, with Mortal Kombat, but such anti-violence campaigns weren't as heard out, because you didn't actually have anyone imitating Mortal Kombat in public.

That's why it's important to try and convince radicals that not all people are impressionable shmucks who'll imitate every last inconscionable thing they see on TV, in a movie, or in a video-game. That is, if we want to keep enjoying these forms of entertainment as we have.

My point was that people as a whole will generally either disapprove of the fighting as a whole, or know enough about it to understand what they are actually seeing. Basically, I believe that if we were to take the population as a whole, the ones that are simply rooting for violence merely for the sake of violence would be the fast minority.
People may root for a fighter, but they're interested in watching a good fight where both fighters are taking a beating. Look at heavyweight fights, people started getting mad because expensive fights only lasted 3 rounds at most.


Those were completely different times. It's hard for me to say more without getting into how I think human nature has changed over time. However, back then war was a way of life, and something expected to happen. Now I think it's pretty safe to say most people don't EXPECT to end up in a huge war. However, if war is not part of your society, chances are you will not glorify violence. If anything, I'd say the reason we still have sanctioned fights as a sport is tradition in many ways, as well as purely for a competition to see who is best at knocking other people's brains out.
Are you sure the times are any different? Since 9-11, we no longer feel safe. Everyone is waiting for the next terrorist strike. We have more restrictions on our travel. Aside from terrorist, the threat from Israel, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and India leading us to another war is high. It seems like the big threat from the Cold War shifted to smaller threats that involve us indirectly.
The media has followed suit with this new paranoia. Just look at all the new - more gorier - slasher/re-make films. or all the new blockbuster action movies. Not to mention video games. Again, pop-culture is a reflection of our society.


I don't know about everyone else, but when I pass a car accident I try to figure out exactly what happened and if people are ok. I'm not looking at it thinking "WHOA COOL A CAR ACCIDENT IF ONLY I HAD MY CAMERA!" The two reactions are completely different. Really, though, I don't see how any of that paragraph points to violence being part of some deep ingrained need for humans to be violent.You're taking it out of context. let me explain it. The Car Crash theory is a reference to people's reactions at the precise moment of the event happening, not afterwards. Take for instance The Simpsons episode where Bart becomes a daredevil. The part where daredevil Lance Murdock attempts his stunt, and everyone - except Bart - looks away. that's what I'm implying with the "mini riot" situation.


I may. However, at this point I think the debate has moved beyond a single game, and where I will likely never have a desire to play a Manhunt game I likely won't check it out for at least quite a while.Yeah, but that's proof of how people, rather than examine the why, would rather assume with little to no facts of the truth. A few simple images, or cut scenes don't tell the story of a game, just the contents.


I actually don't have any problems with the GTA games that I've played. I have the first one that came out for the PS2, had a lot of fun with it (though I never really got that far from what I remember). However, I do think I'll ever get one again, and I don't think anyone under the age of 17/18 should be playing them (I don't even know what the rating is). A lot of the violence isn't needed, and I'd much prefer games like GTA not be on the market, but the realism involved in it isn't to the point where it looks incredibly realistic or anything.Wasn't that the point of every generation of game systems. First every system tried to be graphically like the arcades. Once they reached that point, Arcade games have plummeted, and now it's all about realism and interactivity. Why do you think the FF series went from cartoonish manga characters to life like people? Because the technology wasn't there. Even animation has gone that root. With every new Pixar movie, comes newer, more real, life like characters. No matter the content, everything is trying to be more interactive, life like, and realistic.


This pretty much confirms that it should have an AO rating. If a premise of a game is "you have to kill brutally because you are a psychopathic killer" I don't really see how you can argue against an AO rating.

Oh I am in complete agreement that it is the family's fault for allowing their child to play the game. As I said, it is the level of realism involved and overall violence that determines for me if a game is appropriate for children, which I would hope is the same for most people. However, I think that either the violence in games is really starting to push a bit too far, or the AO rating needs to be used far more often. If the games are meant for people that are 21+ then they should have that rating, and that will be the end of it. Game companies will be able to make whatever game they want, and it is completely in the hands of the retailers and the parents to ensure kids don't play AO rated games.
I'm not at all complaining about the ratings. Games like Manhunt, GTA, and most shooters, should receive an AO or M rating. But I don't think these games should be banned. That's pretty much censorship in the extreme.
What I hate, is the people that advocate banning them with the excuse of kids, which is ultimately a parents responsibility. Or the other excuse of saying that it's just senseless violence, without even mentioning, or just concentrating on a specific premise of a game.


If you want my honest opinion on why some forms of music are popular I can sum it up with three words: people are stupid. That's not what we're talking about, though, so I'll move on...

Anyway, there is a difference between having violence in a game because it is important to the story and having a game based upon violence. Like I said before, I wouldn't have a huge issue with it if it were made harder for the games to get into the wrong hands. However, I will say that ultimately I personally do not see the need for excessively violent games.Again, you took it out of context. I wasn't even reffering to todays Rap. I was reffering to how it originally became popular. Look at NWA and the Death Row artists. It got popular because people wanted to know what it was like to be a Gangsta, even though they didn't live in the Ghetto/Hood.
That's pretty much why people play video games. They want to experience things outside of reality. I'm pretty sure that the creators of Manhunt didn't just say: "I know, since GTA got away with all that violence, lets make a game based on butchering people".
They did get their concept from GTA in that the player portrays an antihero - a criminal moving up in a corrupt city. But theirs was: The player portrays an antihero serial killer who must escape from a city over run by gangs of maniacs. Sort of Ed Gein/The Warriors/The Running Man.
So no, I really don't think they based an entire game around violence.


You can already do things in games that you'd never see in a movie or a work of art. However, in all of those cases, I still believe that reading it or viewing it is completely and utterly different than basically being what brings it about on the screen.please elaborate, like what? Exactly what movies/T.V shows are YOU watching - or aren't watching? I see no difference between all mediums. I've seen art that's vary graphic - yet powerful in it's message. I've heard songs that describe stuff that surpasses anything heard on the news. I've read books that describe things, that have actually made me put stop reading in order to catch my bearings. Movies/T.V and games are far tamer than other forms of media. The only difference I've see is that it's visual or interactive.

I'm one of THOSE people? Pray tell, who are THOSE people? That statement has to be even more discriminating and presumptuous than anything I had to say.

You completely went off on liberals for something that every single person is guilty of. I personally do not know your political views well enough to say what you consider yourself, but you sure as heck don't seem to like people that are classified for liberals. Don't get me wrong, not liking liberals is just fine, but the reasons you stated aren't unique to liberals, nor are they any more/less common among liberals than any other type of person. Keep in mmind, I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, but I do get irked when someone tries to point a finger and say "IT IS ALL THOSE PEOPLE'S FAULT RIGHT THERE!"


I'm quite well aware what the Japanese life style is like, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about it. If you ask me, it's because so much more is expected of people in Japanese society that most are more well-disciplined than the average American. And I'm not talking about sports, but academia and personal conduct, stuff that's actually going to prove helpful in their future, as opposed to teaching the aggression that most athletics do.

I'm sorry, but some of the stuff you say is so out of left field. If you really got the nail on the head with this one then they would never play sports, ever. Yet, they play sports all the time. Also, it has less to do with being well-disciplined than that simply being the society they are living in. You either perform well, or you don't. If you don't then you get a shit job (which is exactly how it works everywhere else). However, I've heard so many stories, both first and second hand, about how horrible it is to live there once you enter the work force. A professor of mine once told me about a friend of his who broke down crying when her vacation in Italy ended. She simply DID NOT want to go back to Japan because of the amount of stress EVERYONE is under. I could go on, but I feel like I've already spent too much time writing on a tangent that really has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing.


Columbine is significant to the discussion of violent video-games because the two perpetrators were supposedly inspired by Doom to shoot up their school. That's when mainstream media began questioning video-game violence as a rule; that was back in 1999/2000. You could also argue that in began back in 1995, with Mortal Kombat, but such anti-violence campaigns weren't as heard out, because you didn't actually have anyone imitating Mortal Kombat in public.

Ok... but you never said that. Besides, I'm not arguing that violent video games make people go out and do stupid things. If a person imitates what he or she sees in a video game then there is likely a problem with that individual person.


That's why it's important to try and convince radicals that not all people are impressionable shmucks who'll imitate every last inconscionable thing they see on TV, in a movie, or in a video-game. That is, if we want to keep enjoying these forms of entertainment as we have.

Most people will not imitate what they see on the screen, but every single person is impressionable in one way or another. An adult may step out of a movie or finish a game and think, "wow, that really makes me think..." A child, on the other hand, will internalize what he or she sees. My cousin watched the Final Fantasy movie with my uncle and myself. She was 11 at the time, but the film STILL freaked her out to the point of nightmares, and I know she is far from the only kid with that reaction. Now, if a movie like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within can do that to a child imagine what some of the more graphic games and movies can do.

The bottom line is that games are either starting to go way too far, or they need to have an incredibly strict rating system. Banning anything in this regard is stupid, but allowing everything is even stupider.




People may root for a fighter, but they're interested in watching a good fight where both fighters are taking a beating. Look at heavyweight fights, people started getting mad because expensive fights only lasted 3 rounds at most.

I don't think I got my point across properly. There are always going to be those people that just want to see bloodshed. However, I do not think the average person, or anywhere close to the average person, wakes up and goes "I want to see two people beat the crap out of each other for no reason."


Are you sure the times are any different? Since 9-11, we no longer feel safe. Everyone is waiting for the next terrorist strike. We have more restrictions on our travel. Aside from terrorist, the threat from Israel, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and India leading us to another war is high. It seems like the big threat from the Cold War shifted to smaller threats that involve us indirectly. The media has followed suit with this new paranoia. Just look at all the new - more gorier - slasher/re-make films. or all the new blockbuster action movies. Not to mention video games. Again, pop-culture is a reflection of our society.

I could honestly be in the minority here, and I really do not feel like digging up polls to see, but I for one don't think another terrorist attack is a sure thing. I also feel pretty darn safe. The nations of the world (for the most part) are much more apt to want to prevent violence today than cause it. It's because violence inherently invokes danger, which DOES cause us to react with primal urges. However, those urges are "I need to ensure I do not die." Now more than ever there is a global movement to try and prevent violence.


You're taking it out of context. let me explain it. The Car Crash theory is a reference to people's reactions at the precise moment of the event happening, not afterwards. Take for instance The Simpsons episode where Bart becomes a daredevil. The part where daredevil Lance Murdock attempts his stunt, and everyone - except Bart - looks away. that's what I'm implying with the "mini riot" situation.

I'd hope you would agree the reaction is either "I need to shelter myself" or "is what's happening going to harm me?" In both cases the human being is acting on the primal level to save their own ass basically. Once the person determines the threat is not something that will have an impact on his or her own life, well then the reaction following that is highly individualized. However, if you're talking about at the instant it occurs the reaction is still the same. which is to avoid violence until you know it will not harm you.


Yeah, but that's proof of how people, rather than examine the why, would rather assume with little to no facts of the truth. A few simple images, or cut scenes don't tell the story of a game, just the contents.

I am arguing both the story and the content. If I have the story wrong (though I'm going off your own explanation of the story) I would still argue the actual content within the game warrants an AO rating, as well as take the standpoint that there's a lot of needless violence in it.


Wasn't that the point of every generation of game systems. First every system tried to be graphically like the arcades. Once they reached that point, Arcade games have plummeted, and now it's all about realism and interactivity. Why do you think the FF series went from cartoonish manga characters to life like people? Because the technology wasn't there. Even animation has gone that root. With every new Pixar movie, comes newer, more real, life like characters. No matter the content, everything is trying to be more interactive, life like, and realistic.

From my understanding, each generation of systems tried to "improve upon" old systems, or "become better" than old systems. The problem is both terms are relative. Realism soon became the benchmark for a lot of games, but that doesn't mean it still has to be the measuring stick. To be honest, the Final Fantasy games started to lose their appeal for me around VIII. Now that I think about it, I liked FFIX a lot. If anything I'd say realism killed that franchise for me personally.

Also, you can't tell me the reason arcade sales plummeted is because video games are able to be more realistic. By today's standards you could fit a supercomputer in the average arcade box. People don't like going to arcades anymore for some reason, but it is definitely not the industries inability to create realistic games. However, that's a complete tangent and my responses are getting huge so I'll cut myself off there...


I'm not at all complaining about the ratings. Games like Manhunt, GTA, and most shooters, should receive an AO or M rating. But I don't think these games should be banned. That's pretty much censorship in the extreme. What I hate, is the people that advocate banning them with the excuse of kids, which is ultimately a parents responsibility. Or the other excuse of saying that it's just senseless violence, without even mentioning, or just concentrating on a specific premise of a game.

The only thing we're in disagreement here is the senseless violence aspect. In my opinion A LOT of violence in video games is simply not needed. If I really start thinking about it I end up coming to the conclusion that violence isn't needed at all, but then I quickly snap myself back into reality because I know I personally can't give up RPGs. :P

Anyway, I think violence for the sake of violence is needless, but in this case I think the best either of us can hope for is to agree to disagree. Everything else I agree 100%.


Again, you took it out of context. I wasn't even reffering to todays Rap. I was reffering to how it originally became popular. Look at NWA and the Death Row artists. It got popular because people wanted to know what it was like to be a Gangsta, even though they didn't live in the Ghetto/Hood.
That's pretty much why people play video games. They want to experience things outside of reality. I'm pretty sure that the creators of Manhunt didn't just say: "I know, since GTA got away with all that violence, lets make a game based on butchering people".
They did get their concept from GTA in that the player portrays an antihero - a criminal moving up in a corrupt city. But theirs was: The player portrays an antihero serial killer who must escape from a city over run by gangs of maniacs. Sort of Ed Gein/The Warriors/The Running Man.
So no, I really don't think they based an entire game around violence.

I don't see why anyone would want to experience that sort of scenario, though. I just don't see how there is a giant market for the game. I can understand wanting to know what other ways of life are like complely, or wanting to witness something like war safely because it is a huge part of our history, but some stuff just floors me.

Though, now that I say that I suppose it is more simply wanting to experience aspects of life, while remaining safe yourself, that drives people's want to view these games, watch the movies, and so on. However, I still hold to the argument that human beings are not violent for the sake of being violent from some deeply ingrained aspect of their nature. I'd be willing to conceded curious, but not inherently violent. Nor do I think people NEED to see violence. Some may need to satisfy their curiosity, but I don't think anyone is inherently driven to witness violence.


please elaborate, like what? Exactly what movies/T.V shows are YOU watching - or aren't watching? I see no difference between all mediums. I've seen art that's vary graphic - yet powerful in it's message. I've heard songs that describe stuff that surpasses anything heard on the news. I've read books that describe things, that have actually made me put stop reading in order to catch my bearings. Movies/T.V and games are far tamer than other forms of media. The only difference I've see is that it's visual or interactive.

I must not have been clear enough. My point was basically what you said in your last sentence. The difference, most simply put, is that games are interactive activities whereas movies, books, art, tv, etc, are all passive activities. In video games YOU are the one creating what is going on screen, rather than simply viewing it. To me there is a clear distinction there.

You guys are really going to deep..

You guys are really going to deep..we're old shriners, we used to do this on a daily basis. We're used to it. :p



I don't think I got my point across properly. There are always going to be those people that just want to see bloodshed. However, I do not think the average person, or anywhere close to the average person, wakes up and goes "I want to see two people beat the crap out of each other for no reason."I know that, but when there's a new "fight of the century", people line up to see a bloody fight. Look at fights of the past. Most people describe the brutality rather than the technical aspect of the match.


I could honestly be in the minority here, and I really do not feel like digging up polls to see, but I for one don't think another terrorist attack is a sure thing. I also feel pretty darn safe. The nations of the world (for the most part) are much more apt to want to prevent violence today than cause it. It's because violence inherently invokes danger, which DOES cause us to react with primal urges. However, those urges are "I need to ensure I do not die." Now more than ever there is a global movement to try and prevent violence.I feel safe also, even right after 9-11 happend. as a matter of fact, my family and I went to Disneyland that weekend, and it was the best time we've ever had there. With the low attendence, all the lines were short. :p
Anyways
Why is it, that everytime a treaty is created, weeks later both sides are fighting again? Also, it seems that our view of diplomacy seems to be ultimatums, rather than compromise.
Nations may not want war, but they sure have a funny way of showing it.


I'd hope you would agree the reaction is either "I need to shelter myself" or "is what's happening going to harm me?" In both cases the human being is acting on the primal level to save their own ass basically. Once the person determines the threat is not something that will have an impact on his or her own life, well then the reaction following that is highly individualized. However, if you're talking about at the instant it occurs the reaction is still the same. which is to avoid violence until you know it will not harm you.Again, that's not what I'm saying. There's only 3 factors:
1. The Audience
2. The Car Crash about to happen
3. The Reaction as it's about to happen
Everything else is irrelevant.

There's only 2 reactions people will make:
1. Cover eyes/Turn away
2. View every moment


I am arguing both the story and the content. If I have the story wrong (though I'm going off your own explanation of the story) I would still argue the actual content within the game warrants an AO rating, as well as take the standpoint that there's a lot of needless violence in it. It's not needless violence when you (the character) have to survive at all costs. I know what you're gonna say, "Why doesn't the character simply KO rather than kill his opponents?" Well, he's a homicidal maniac so Killing is pretty much all he knows. He also doesn't know how to fight and dies easily when he's detected by enemies.


From my understanding, each generation of systems tried to "improve upon" old systems, or "become better" than old systems. The problem is both terms are relative. Realism soon became the benchmark for a lot of games, but that doesn't mean it still has to be the measuring stick. To be honest, the Final Fantasy games started to lose their appeal for me around VIII. Now that I think about it, I liked FFIX a lot. If anything I'd say realism killed that franchise for me personally.Yeah, once they made VIII, I hoped they wouldn't go that direction. Then IX gave me hope, till X came out. I gave XII a chance, and aside from the "real" characters and battle system, it feels alot like the old FFs.
Anyways
This is another subject all together - although most of our debate has strayed here and there! :p


Also, you can't tell me the reason arcade sales plummeted is because video games are able to be more realistic. By today's standards you could fit a supercomputer in the average arcade box. People don't like going to arcades anymore for some reason, but it is definitely not the industries inability to create realistic games. However, that's a complete tangent and my responses are getting huge so I'll cut myself off there...What was the first thing game companies show off for their new gen systems: The eye-candy: the systems graphics engine, because seeing is believing. Of course the next system would be better than the old one, it's implied for the reason it's being replaced. I remember since the 80's that companies were constantly comparing their graphics to the arcades. Not until the 64 bit wars did they stop the comparisons. I don't know about you, but the last time I went to an arcade it was pretty lonely. No one wants to spend a dollar to play a game that might last only 5-8 mins. Also, I hardly see Joystick games - save for fighters, and only huge interactive ones. But now with the Wii and DDR/Guitar Hero type games, it's pretty much the nail-in-the-coffin for arcades.


The only thing we're in disagreement here is the senseless violence aspect. In my opinion A LOT of violence in video games is simply not needed. If I really start thinking about it I end up coming to the conclusion that violence isn't needed at all, but then I quickly snap myself back into reality because I know I personally can't give up RPGs. :P

Anyway, I think violence for the sake of violence is needless, but in this case I think the best either of us can hope for is to agree to disagree. Everything else I agree 100%.Agree on this point, I'm tired of writing, but every time I read a response, I come up with another point. Can't help it, I like debating. feels like the old shrine days! :p


I don't see why anyone would want to experience that sort of scenario, though. I just don't see how there is a giant market for the game. I can understand wanting to know what other ways of life are like complely, or wanting to witness something like war safely because it is a huge part of our history, but some stuff just floors me.

Though, now that I say that I suppose it is more simply wanting to experience aspects of life, while remaining safe yourself, that drives people's want to view these games, watch the movies, and so on. However, I still hold to the argument that human beings are not violent for the sake of being violent from some deeply ingrained aspect of their nature. I'd be willing to conceded curious, but not inherently violent. Nor do I think people NEED to see violence. Some may need to satisfy their curiosity, but I don't think anyone is inherently driven to witness violence.See, I don't see it that way. The reason why I'm interested in these games, is 'cause it's an entirely new premise. Sure Manhunt is just another survival horror game, but it's different in that the character is a serial killer. I've always wanted to play a game where instead of being the hero, you're the Villain or Antihero. Rockstar tapped into this, which is why I like their games. I don't care whether it's violent, I like playing games that have a new take on old genres.

Now, if a company were to only make an RPG in the same fashion. Hmm... Interesting! :coolegg:


I must not have been clear enough. My point was basically what you said in your last sentence. The difference, most simply put, is that games are interactive activities whereas movies, books, art, tv, etc, are all passive activities. In video games YOU are the one creating what is going on screen, rather than simply viewing it. To me there is a clear distinction there.I see it different. Yeah, you may be creating the what's going on, but you're not thinking to do that, you're simply doing what the game is asking you to do. Music, Storytelling, and Art, on the other hand, actually make you think, which is why they can be so moving and powerful. For example: Tarantino deliberately turned away the camera for the ear cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs. He intended to show the goriness, but after viewing both scenes, he realized that by not showing it, it became psychological and more powerful.

So I totally skipped the 2nd and 3rd page of discussion cause it is almost midnight and this is the last coherent thought I have comin, so sorry if I interrupt your ongoing conversation.

Violence in video games is not good for the younglings. They have the rating system in place for a reason, so if something is going wrong with kids, it's the parent's fault for not paying attention to their kids, not the game makers fault. I'm all for the laws where kids that are underage cannot purchase the T or M rated games without a parent or an adult making the purchase. It will save a lot of grief on both ends of the system.

Personally, I could careless what is in a video game. I still play friggin Pokemon Puzzle League on the N64. I play not just to kill or destroy, but just to have fun. Truthfully, I have more fun playing Guitar Hero or the Mario Party games than on Halo or Battlefront. Sure, there are some days where life is terrible and the only way to cure it is in a Chinese Tank whilst running over them North Koreans, but that's not to say that I'm going to go out and start randomly firing bullets into the air and screaming something about "King Kong got nothin on me!"

Maybe it is just one of those rites of passage. You are like 10 years old and you watch either an older brother, cousin, friend, uncle, or your own father, running around the Facility with the Golden Gun, poppin a cap in everybody, and you wanna do it to. Heck if I know, but to make such a little thing like that an obsession? It gets old, and it gets old fast.

Another thing that just popped into my mind is a conspiracy theory. (You can skip if ya want.) What if the government is trying to train us all to be soldiers? There is a strong correlation between constant bombardment of certain material that causes desensitization in children and young adults. People who have no feelings make the best soldiers and there has also been some talk about people who are great at FPS's have natural accuracy with some weapons. Also, in the news there has been talk of reinstating the draft...so I guess if you tie it all together, the game companies have forged a secret alliance with each other and because the US is a major importer of all sorts of FPS's, the companies and the government are collaborating in order to create an army of super soldiers that only lack basic physical training. Quite farfetched, but hey, anything is possible...plus, that just sounds like a game someone would make right there...

To finish off (so I can stop falling asleep on the keyboard) my personal taste in games is not to kill, but to have fun. For some it's the story, others the music, and some just as basic as the genre, but everyone has at least started trying to play the violent games that we all knew we weren't supposed to play, but did anyway. I'm sure (I hope) that there are no psychopathic murderers in the forums...but I don't think we'd ever know.

Good discussion topic ::applause::

Oyasumi.

I know that, but when there's a new "fight of the century", people line up to see a bloody fight. Look at fights of the past. Most people describe the brutality rather than the technical aspect of the match.

This is actually something I cannot comment on, because I don't really watch fights. I may watch a UFC every now and then if I know the styles, but in general I can't really follow it, so I just stick to baseball.


Why is it, that everytime a treaty is created, weeks later both sides are fighting again? Also, it seems that our view of diplomacy seems to be ultimatums, rather than compromise.
Nations may not want war, but they sure have a funny way of showing it.

Exactly what treaties are you thinking of? I'm sure for every treaty that is broken there is an equal number that aren't (likely more, but again no facts to back myself up, so going conservative). Also, by "our view" do you mean the world's view or the United State's view? If you mean the United State's view, it varies depending upon whatever President is in power. If you mean the world, well that's almost impossible to make a clear case either way...


Again, that's not what I'm saying. There's only 3 factors:
1. The Audience
2. The Car Crash about to happen
3. The Reaction as it's about to happen
Everything else is irrelevant.

There's only 2 reactions people will make:
1. Cover eyes/Turn away
2. View every moment

Yes, once the person has determined that whatever is happening will not harm him or her. Well, there are those cases of being frozen in fear, but I don't think that really counts as either reaction you're talking about. As for the event, and reactions, I'd argue those that continue to watch USUALLY do so out of shock or disbelief. There are some that do look out of curiosity, but I still think those that look for the violence involved are in the extreme minority. If I'm still missing the exact point that you're trying to make with that you're going to have to re-explain it, because otherwise I'm really unsure where you were going with it.


It's not needless violence when you (the character) have to survive at all costs. I know what you're gonna say, "Why doesn't the character simply KO rather than kill his opponents?" Well, he's a homicidal maniac so Killing is pretty much all he knows. He also doesn't know how to fight and dies easily when he's detected by enemies.

Actually, my first reaction was that "surviving at all costs doesn't mean brutally killing people". I can understand a need for death in a lot of games, and this one isn't an exception, obviously. However, how the killing is brought about, and the manner in which the players are allowed to bring that death about, is what I consider needless about it. If you need to kill to stay alive, ok. However, it doesn't have to be excessively brutal.


Yeah, once they made VIII, I hoped they wouldn't go that direction. Then IX gave me hope, till X came out. I gave XII a chance, and aside from the "real" characters and battle system, it feels alot like the old FFs.
Anyways
This is another subject all together - although most of our debate has strayed here and there! :p

I actually haven't played an FF since X, which I didn't really like at all. I think I played a demo of XII and didn't care for it, but I'm not sure... ANYWAY...


What was the first thing game companies show off for their new gen systems: The eye-candy: the systems graphics engine, because seeing is believing. Of course the next system would be better than the old one, it's implied for the reason it's being replaced. I remember since the 80's that companies were constantly comparing their graphics to the arcades. Not until the 64 bit wars did they stop the comparisons. I don't know about you, but the last time I went to an arcade it was pretty lonely. No one wants to spend a dollar to play a game that might last only 5-8 mins. Also, I hardly see Joystick games - save for fighters, and only huge interactive ones. But now with the Wii and DDR/Guitar Hero type games, it's pretty much the nail-in-the-coffin for arcades.

Better graphics does not mean that games inherently have to become more life-like. Something can look really nice and not have a hint of reality to it. Realism just became the measuring stick because it's easy to compare it to reality, but I think realism being the measuring stick needs to be changed.


Agree on this point, I'm tired of writing, but every time I read a response, I come up with another point. Can't help it, I like debating. feels like the old shrine days! :p

Haha, indeed. I stopped debating on here because it usually degraded to name calling or simply went in circles. So far this has been a welcome change. :P


See, I don't see it that way. The reason why I'm interested in these games, is 'cause it's an entirely new premise. Sure Manhunt is just another survival horror game, but it's different in that the character is a serial killer. I've always wanted to play a game where instead of being the hero, you're the Villain or Antihero. Rockstar tapped into this, which is why I like their games. I don't care whether it's violent, I like playing games that have a new take on old genres.

But doesn't that fall under the umbrella of "curiosity"? All the same, your reason still isn't that you are inherently driven to violence. You just want to know what it's like, while safely playing a video game instead of actually acting it out yourself. Do you consider yourself driven to witness violence?


I see it different. Yeah, you may be creating the what's going on, but you're not thinking to do that, you're simply doing what the game is asking you to do. Music, Storytelling, and Art, on the other hand, actually make you think, which is why they can be so moving and powerful. For example: Tarantino deliberately turned away the camera for the ear cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs. He intended to show the goriness, but after viewing both scenes, he realized that by not showing it, it became psychological and more powerful.

To be honest I think that is a pretty weak argument. Video games, at least good ones, employ all of the same storytelling techniques as movies, tv, books, and art. However, they also add the element of interaction with the story. Really, I see video games as a step beyond the conventional means of story telling, because they are both passive and active, whereas other forms of media are merely passive.

if you are mad at someone, just battle it out on quake, or DOA.

and than have dinner.

been like that in my house for years. we are a happy family.



-

I grew up playing Mortal Kombat,Earthworm Jim(it's not that violent.But has the guns,anyway),and other games and the only way the games influenced me,were in my drawings.I can say i always have played games with mild violence and gore,but i know were to flow off my mind the violence....Drawings,comics,paintings....Maybe that's what didn't make me such a violence person.Dunno.

Violence is natural in this world, look at what George W is doing to it.

I personally am not violent after playing doom or any fighting game, and i dont believe any of these kids commiting crimes are affected by 'video games'.

its just easy for the victims of those or the people making a fuss about the crimes to point there finger at video games, its an easy target, and its bullshit
I agree. There is no hard evidence whatsoever confirming a relationship between violent video games and crime, I don't care how may psychologists they come up with stating otherwise. I haven't found any tests or studies supporting their case either.
If people are gonna b**ch and whine about kids going postal after playing video games, then they shouldn't have let them play them in the first place! I'm sick and tired of seeing parents buy M-rated games with lots of violence for their preteen kids(and, yes it does happen), then turn around and blame the companies for making the games when their kids get into trouble! It's like their to chicken to take responsibility for buying the games in the first place.
Come on people, take responsibility for your own actions for once! It won't kill ya!
P.S. Please don't accuse me of being one of the guys who blame it on human nature. I believe that the biggest influence if environment and upbringing. Also, even though I play the some of the most violent games out there, I'm really a gentle person and won't resort to violence unless either me or my family or friends are threatened.

You didn't read anything other that the post you quoted, did you?

Actually, I read every single post in this thread. I just felt like this one help summarize my views the best. I didn't want to take up to much space saying what I really wanted to. Remember, it's just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to understand me or my views.

If I where you, I'd elaborate.
people tend to take your word exactly, so it's best to just say everything and get it over with.
It also makes for a better debate!

I see what you're saying. It's just that if I said everything that I want to, I could write a 10 page essay. I don't want to take up that much space.

I know what you mean, I was like that to, I find it easier to just shorten it down to key points, then use the rest for "ammo" when debating. Just look at how Rabid and I went back and forth. It looks like a lot, but it's really not.

That's exactly how I am,too.

Id just like to add this - Violence has been around Loooooooooooooooooooong before videogames. After All, they werent around (and i hasten to add,did not cause World war 1 and 2, Even then, after they were made, youve got Iraq,Nam,Kosovo,Falklands, etc etc..yet the Media will happily say "YEAH! GO F*CKING KILL EM ALL BOYS!" Funny that, Eh? And then are only too quick to demonise videogames...Morons.

Someone who revives a thread this old to say something that's been said a thousand times before has no business calling anyone else a moron.

Arron: you did this in GD, too. Don't do it again. Look at the date of the last post in a thread before you respond, please.