Youth tearing apart old games

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 1:22 am

http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1343744,00.asp

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 2:21 am

arrogant kids.. sheesh.

Good lord.. was I that cocky when I was a kid?

Anyway, sit them in front of DM.. they won't say things like that. I even did a test. I had some younger kids download and play DM a loong while back. They liked it.. they said the graphics kinda sucked compared to now but they found it challenging and fun.

moo

Post by **Gambit37** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 2:53 pm

I wouldn't necessarily say it's arrogance -- just a natural reaction. I'm sure that we all, as kids, laughed at the stuff our parents played because it was simple, basic, or whatever.

Having said that, it does really show how expectations have changed with the timeless march of technology. It will be interesting to see what the kids of those kids are saying about the games we play today: "Whaddya mean I can't plug it in my head? You mean, like, I have to use my hands?... This is so lame!"

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 11:48 pm

well, to be quite honest. I did not shirk my grandpa's and Mothers childhood games. The most technological item I had seen at that point was "Operation" and "hungry hungry hippo". So playing games like marbles, pick up sticks, solitaire, etc. Were not something I saw as lame. I gave them the chance.

I think that is one rel difference between myself and these kids. I hade no basis for "quality" to go by. Magazines these days push if it has good graphics or not. However, no comments about "for the time" or "with the tech available" I mean how do they go about judging a gameboy game.. gamboy advance game. Cell phone game, digital watch game? All of these got closer to the games from atari, nintendo, etc..

Anyway, I do think it's arogance. It's the ever lasting "I'm 14 and I know everything" that so many children (more frequently boys) suffer from. IT doesn't ware off untill they get smacked a few times for it or they get older and learn to shut up before making a fool of themselves.

I'm reasonably sure I suffered from something of this sort to some degree myself in my youth.

Over all though, my point being that the majority of them gave it no chance due to the apearance of the game. Rather than trying to really challenge it.

moo

Post by **Gambit37** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:13 am

What I was trying to say was that, while you view the reaction as arrogance and I can understand why, I think it's simplistic to really see it as actual arrogance. Most teenagers go through exactly what you described, due to all kinds of changes in their lives, and it's confusion of that period that often makes them react in ways that might appear arrogant. Experience and guidance, for the most part, will help most kids develop better ways of dealing with things, which utlimately lead to respecting others views, etc. I know what you're saying, I just don't think the word 'arrogant' is technically the best way to describe what's going on there.

Indeed, I found the article quite funny. I don't think those kids are arrogant so much as simply over indulged and spoilt by modern technology. All they are doing is comparing the old style games to what they currently know. Admittedly, some of the comments perhaps aren't thought through, but what do you expect from 9-12 year olds who have been brought up on MTV, Pop Idol, computer games and the belief that they are entitled to everything because some glossy kids lifestyle magazine tells them so?

I think your point about quality is very important. Most people don't realise that the real meaning of quality is "fitness for purpose". The new Tomb Raider game is much better looking than all the previous ones, and was described as having "high quality" graphics. Does that make it a "high quality" game -- course not! The controls are bollocks and it's damn near unplayable -- and being unplayable certainly makes it unfit for the purposes of being a game.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:34 am

I think the group mentality aspect and timescale can't be ruled out - for example, have you ever find a slower/subtle film dismissed when watched in a group in a normal evening, that you might enjoy on your own and get?
I think handing a game individually out and tellign them to play it for a week is different from going 'what do you think' for a bunch of kids to make a quick snap call on

In reverse, i think in a group a flashy modern game would likely to get an instant 'woah' if its got a few hooks, that might get ripped apart later by the same gorup that's had a chance to play

DM - when i first played it, i was hooked right away. Why? BEcause at the time it was graphically clean and more real than alot of other games. Playign t more al lthe other depths cme out, but it was that initial presentation and feel that would make me go 'woah, this game must be cool'. I'm sure putting anyone on the spot now, they would go 'umm, yeah' and be reserved as it doens't have that same graphical punch...carry on playign and be suckered in, but i can't imagien someone fresh havgn that same hooked reaction for mthe first moment of play

Games always seem to have three cycles of catching or losing you...a) first playing/seeing it. Graphics and tricks are all important. A game being like anything you have seen before can be a turn off, the flashy graphics or other surface mechaics can make you go 'woah. b) playign after - if you liek the game then it follows on fro mfirst seeing it, if you didn't it might take you a while to bother to go back to it. Then you start to notice the gameplay...whether soemthing gets repetative, boring, has bad mechanics, controls, poorly thought out level design. Finally, you get to c) where you have played it for a while (within the week, nowadays). Are you still being suckered back in? Have you finished it already? Have you finihed it but know you want to play it again? Have you got stuck somewhere and are put off carryign on?

I think recently so much is made of grabbing you, that then lots don't see mto deliver after, or don't deliver anythign new, or evn if they are good then bag' you are done before you know it, without a reason to play again. In that sort of climate, I imagin ethat you use the hook as your baseline - if something can hook you yet turn into crap, why even bother with somehtign that can't even deliver the initial bang?

I would check the above for spellign and sense but i am tired and off to bed - apologies!

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:08 am

I don't really mean to dwell so much on this but based on the below.. I'd say arrogance.. at the very least ignorance. Perhaps misguided.. but still arrogance none the less.

Arrogance: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims

John: But you can get this game on a cell phone. Why would you want to pay for it in an arcade?

Kirk: I'm sure everyone who made this game is dead by now.

To them it's worthless. They would rather "play outside" than play this game. They feel they are above playing such a game. That it's so ancient that the people who made it are likley dead and gone already.. it's a relic and they aren't historians. I'm sure it bothers me more since my first video game system looked like a powerbar with two dials and three swithces... it was Pong with three modes. These games were good enough for me at that time, that I could spend a few hours playing them. Yet these kids wouldn't give it the snot outta their nose.

I think at the tender age of 30, I'm not yet a relic.

It does remeind me of the scene in back to the Future 2 where he walks into the antique store and see's the game and tries to explain to the kids how cool the game is.. the put it down verbally and then leave.

Also.. I would like to point out this ..
Tim: This is nothing compared to Grand Theft Auto III, because you can't steal a taxi cab, pick up somebody, then drive into the ocean with him.

How old are these kids? How is it he's played this game? GTA III is supposed to have a mature rating. As far as it goes aren't you supposed to be 18 to buy it? It contains sex and violence. Oh.. they can't watch it on the big screen or little screen.. but it's ok if they can interact with it?

This is a game that simply bothers me to no end. I think it should have a proper label with big red letters stating the content in an easy way for parents to understand.. IT'S GRAPHIC. It's an adult game and I'm even leary about adults playing it. I'll tell you very plainly why it bothers me since games like quake 3 do not.. It's realistic in the sense of what you can do and it seems to dumb down the concequeneces for your actions by simply saying you can drive into a chop shop and bingo you are home free. I've said it before.. aside from the above example. You can go pick up a hooker, have sex with her, and then kill her to get your money back. This happens all to often in real life. Why are we puting it in what seems a positive light? You can have hours of fun killing people who cannot defend themselves. Get rewarded with powerups and money.

Anyway.. I digress.. I could go on for hours about this game. I simply feel it has no place and yet I think of myself as open minded.. yet I can see no positive aspect to this.

moo

PicturesInTheDark · Post by **PicturesInTheDark** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:25 pm

It may also have something to do with what you get when you buy games these days. Remember the thread we had in another forum here about graphics/action vs. content/puzzles - if you never see anything else old kind of games like DM may strike you as boring at first glance - but if you experience them I think most would find them quite interesting, but that requires some patience.

Regards, PitD

Post by **Gambit37** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 2:15 pm

This is a really interesting discussion, and it's great that we have a place to mull over such things. It's like we've all met each other through a common basis and then moved to learn and talk about new things... hey, sounds a bit like real life...

I think that Fuzzface has a good point about the age range, and also group mentality is very important. I think really that's what I was trying to get at with regard to correct usage of 'arrogance' -- it's more about age and expectation, and to agree with you Cows, it's also definitely about ignorance. If these kids are fairly well balanced, and grow up to be thoughtful, respectful, sensitive people, hopefully they will be having the same discussions when they are 30, defending their generations' games to a new gaggle of whippersnappers.

Fuzzfac also discusses a very good point about the 'hooks' that draw people into games. I think this is the crux of the matter, and ties in to the thread started by Strangely about 2D/3D. It's all about 'abstraction' or 'representation'. These days, most games have no abstraction at all, other than perhaps their user interface. The game content itself has become so realistic, that players (regardless of age) expect things to move and work as they would in the real world. Look at the stuff that will be in Half-Life 2. Real physics. PROPER artifical intelligence (well, to a point). Compelling environments, etc. Is it all really necessary?

Eventually, games will lose what it is that makes them games -- the sense that they are 'only a game', meant to be enjoyed, put aside, and then get on with your life. I think there's a danger of getting to the Better than Life stage of development of computer games. Maybe not quite that dangerous, but hey

This was just a collection of random thoughts...

BTW, I've never played any of the GTA games. Can you really do all the things you said? That's pretty bad. I mean it's one things to have a FPS where you gun down countless faceless enemies, but there's some jsutification that they are normally 'bad' and out to get you. It sounds like GTA is pretty damn irresponsible, certainly if I had kids I wouldn't let mine near it. And judging by the stories we see on the news more and more frequently, I wouldn't let many adults near it either!

babble, babble...

sucinum · Post by **sucinum** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 5:10 pm

that's maybe the same than out parents thought about us. i still can't think of a way how these kids could turn back to normal

after reading the whole article, there is something else - the magazine calls some game the worst game ever. but im sure this throne belongs to another game (one i played as a kid) which name i can't remember :/

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:39 am

Having Sex with hookers in that game gives you a power up. it of course costs you money. However should you kill her after you get the money back.. and there are an endless supply of hookers I'm sure in the game.

There was an "inspired" killing out here based on the game. Two teens 15 and 16 stole a car went to the highway with a gun.. who knows how they got that and started taking shots at cars passing by. They killed a small family wife husband and one or two children.. can't remember exactly. According to sources the children stated a refrence to the game and wanting to try it out.

Now I always say at this point that they are likley screwed in the head to begin with.. but they would never have gotten the idea if not for the game supposedly. SO...... I think the creators should take some responsibility for their content. There is a limit to what should be freely "spoken" and to whom.

moo

PicturesInTheDark · Post by **PicturesInTheDark** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:51 am

That is a sensible point. I remember a discussion a while ago about a guy who read a Stephen King novel (was it "The Shining"? ) and then killed somebody referencing the book. But in my opinion blaming this (or any author) for that is complete nonsense - otherwise no explicit or violent content should be published at all, and that can not be the purpose just because some people are not able to get a grip on their own lives, wounds or whatever it is that drives them.

Someone who is not even "creative" enough to have an own idea of violence will always find a source to copy - but how can you blame the creator of that source for the mischief done?

Regards, PitD

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:42 pm

I'd never suggest blaming the creator of the "entertainment" however I do expect that the creator think about the content they are putting out there. That as engrosing as they wish to make it. Clear line between the fantasy and reality need to be drawn.

In the case of this game you are put in the place of a realistic every day today type of thug. A person who has no moral boundaries, and acts of senseless violence are rewarded.

Now besides the fact that I can not see any reason for a game like this to even exist, as I cannot understand why someone would want to enact these crimes. Let's just point out that kids *ARE* getting a hold of this game and playing it. Kids who are being raised by TV and video games and musicians like Emminem. I see a large growth in violence regarding children. By this I mean Children enacting violence on other children and adults. Someone recently said "it's a sad state the world is in when a grown adult has to fear a 14 year old kid".

Children *ARE* influenced by this stuff.. even kids who are not predisposed to acts of senseless violence already. We as humans learn to act and react based on things we see in our environment. If we see examples all around to make us think this world is a kill or be killed kind of place. Then damn it we are going to grow up acting in this way untill we learn different. The reason we have laws and morals that are tought to us is for survivl of the species. Humans are capable of unspeakable violence without needing to be insane. All that is required is a lack of morals and what not being instituted.

However, whos job is that? Teachers can't do anything. They can barely teach their classes. There is no way of punishing a child these days other than booting them out. Where obviously.. they learn nothing about what they need to learn. Parents are spending more time at work and less time with their kids. The Playstation and the TV raise them. So who's fault is it? The parents obviously need to take more interest regardless of the fact they had a bad/busy day at work. YOU CHOSE TO HAVE A CHILD is what I'd like to say to them. Even if the child was not planned their choice was still to not put it up for adoption. A child is not a pet.. you don't just feed it and cloth it and expect it to be fine on it's own.

I think things like lord of the flies can illustrate how unsupervised children can become quite scary.. very quickly.

end of rant... for now.
moo

Post by **Lunever** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:28 pm

Cows: Aw, you sound like a frustrated old grump!

"Our" generation has no right to complain about younger generations being spoiled by technology, for it is our generation that made that tech level come true.

Games and movies, no matter how violent and explicit are not the reason for people running amok. When I was 14, I secretly watched and played all violent and explicit movies and games I could get my hands on and despite existing family problems didn't get a mad berzerker, and most other people who have consumed that stuff didn't do so either. Blaming crimes on a game - any game - is as ridiculous as blaming high school masacres on Marylin Manson's music.
It's just an easy excuse not to acknowledge that the society we are living in, participating in, the system we ourselves are subsisting with our dayly work, is making people ill, physically and mentally. Social problems, whether they be obvious or subtle like a lack of understanding and flexibilty by parents, are driving people into misbehaviour. Violent games and music can be a ventile, a catharsis for many normal people. The extend of crime and violence of those who are deranged enough to copy such acts to real life are neither limited by the choice of entertainment nor are they healed by censure of such contents.
When I was young many more contents were forbidden than nowadays, and I'm damn glad that I didn't limit myself to what some oldish grumps considered proper.
So I think those kids are perfectly normal kids, albeit a bit spoiled by what we and our like have participated in creating. I wasn't better or more mature when I was that age, and I'm damn glad that I still remember that.

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:53 am

Sorry .. but that's a cop out.

**WARNING THE FOLLOWING MAY SOUND ANGRY AT POINTS.. HOWEVER I'M NOT**

I never said it was the fault of the games.. in fact I said it wasn't. What I did say was that the creators and distributors of this content need to take responsibility for the content and who's hands it might go into.

Parents themselves must take a greater interest in the content that their childs entertainment comes with. Who cares if it's not to your taste.. listen to what it says. Spend more time with their child.

However, we can not control who has kids at this point. We can not make sure they know what their kids is doing.. that's up to them. What we can do is try to control content to a degree and to control more effectively who see's that content. Far to many times do I hear about young kids playing that game. Either (A) they purchased it themselves from a store that doesn't care (YES THIS DOES HAPPEN) or (B) their parents purchased it for them with out knowing or not caring about the content.

I shoudl think that the rating system (ESRB here) should be enforced and that a game such as this should be restricted to 18+. That information about the ratings should be visible. Too many parents do *NOT* know about the system or that video games contain content like that. Their experience consists of Pac Man and Tetris.

back to the content though... tell me Lunever.. where would you draw the line? enacting realistic violent crimes on seemingly defenceless victims seems to be acceptable to you. How about games for Rapists and pedophiles? Would that be fine too? how far does it have to go for you to think that is bad content?

I personally reached my limit. I think this game has gone too far. The only point being shock value and as such they take no responsibilty for it. After all it's "just a game".

Again I stress some people/kids are susceptible to emulating such acts. That makes the media they are exposed to and the parents who are alowing them to be exposed to it, are responsible for their development.

Let me mention one more thing.. I used to use the whole argument you just presented to me. The whole music has no effect on them I listened to that and I'm not insane. I watched scary movies and I don't go out and kill people. Problem is.. we are not talking about ME.. or YOU. There are far too many influences to nail it down to one person. We are not an example of humanity on whole. there is enough evidence to support that people do get influenced by this and do enact these things. To deny that is nothing more than ignorance.. just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's not there. I've learned that the hard way already. I'm not talking outta my ass here.. I'm talking from my own experiences and from what I've seen with my own eyes.

oh and yes.. it is frustrating.. but I'm not old and I'm not a grump. I do love a good debate though.. this just happens to be something I'm particularly passionate about. I'm in part responsible for media people see. I simply feel i need to take some responsibilities for the content I send out. That's why its a big deal to me.

As for Marylin Manson, he seems like a nice guy in interviews.. most of his songs are somewhat thought provoking. I'm inclined to think he simply plays the shock card to see if people will make it past the image to see what he's saying. Then we have people like Emminem who can turn a rhyme quite quickly and has a knack playing to a crowd but his message is always negative nasty and violent.. and frequently to people who don't deserve it. He's little more than an angry voice venting to a crowd. Of the songs I've heard from him there is a large component of violence against women. Yet look at mr.badboy.. he's pristine. Gold, expensive clothes and clean cut. Why bother mentioning all this? To show I think about things.. I look below the surface.. I pay attention and I examine things before spouting off my mouth. So I would hope that no one takes my words for some regurgatation of what others have said.

However.. once my mouth starts going I can go on and on and on.. so I'm going to shut up now.

PicturesInTheDark · Post by **PicturesInTheDark** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:13 am

I quite agree on one level, cows. It is very hard indeed to draw the line, because there's so many different levels of violence or abuse that you can never connect it to people in general. Personally, I still like to play Doom (for example) to relax and get down if I had a hard day - simple fun killing monsters, but maybe this is already the wrong side - I cannot rule this out.

However, since you brought up Eminem I have to say even if I'm not a native speaker I like him a lot - the message he transports to me (personally) is that he is someone who is really pissed with how he had to live and what happened to him and is still happening to others - so I (again: personally, just me!) am fully o.k. with what he does and how he does it.

I know that others may interpret this quite differently and kids may even act violently because of one of his songs/messages - but you just cannot forbid or restrict everything ! The main point will always be how you personally react towards the loads of data you are surrounded by every day... and I am pretty sure there are a lot of things I do not want to be available to 14 year old kids or even myself - but that is where we are. Civilized western world, begin of 21st century. Lies and masks all around us - there is no easy way I can imagine of stopping this...

Regards, PitD

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:00 pm

he had a bad mother.. oh my. She was so mean to him. Yes.. sounds a lot like those bleeding hearts talking about the poor serial murderer.

Agreed I don't think he's one of those.. but my point is that he has no excuse for pulling a gun in public, nor for threatening people who have done nothing to him. I don't think that content of some of his songs is really apropriate. For instance singing about killing your exwife and having your daughter help you dispose of the body.. not only that have your daughter there while recording it with a nice upity beat that you can dance and laugh to... (Sigh) or perhaps the one about him justifying rape, killing, etc because of the above mention.. had a hard life.. that's why I'm the way that I am. I could go on.. I poured of lyric sheets.. not listening first to the music which makes you wanna get up and hop around.. first reading the content.. seeing what is said.

After reading about him in news, and his lyric sheets. I find this man while rythmically gifted.. has some serious issues with violence and women which I don't agree with as well as a constant urge to mouth people off public who have done him no wrong. Even threaten them when they try to defend themselves. He has a whole lot of anger and I simply don't think he's expressing it in a healthy way and I certainly do not think that he should be emulated.. which many people are unfortunately doing because.. hey "it's cool"

I simply have a low tolerance for senseless violence that does not break that fantasy layer. When it's still too raw and real. Even though it's spoken, or simulated.

Some people love him.. they are willing to see past his obvious transgressions and say oh.. poor guy he's missunderstood. I'm simply not one of those people.

One little point to make about vioent music inspiring those susceptible. The song "Nookie" If I haven't misscounted from the documentary, has had recorded 3 gang rapes at concerts during that song. The bands response.. to still play it. We don't make them do it. *3* times guys.. and just during that song? Gee.. I don't see any connection.. do you? I can see their sick little minds turning.. waiting for "their" song.. so they can pounce one somone and go.. the people around didn't stop it.. they didn't take place.. but they didn't stop it and one of the victims stated that they cheered them on. Tell me.. do messed up people gang all together and all go to see this band.. or could there be some kind of influence there?

I think there is a very very blurry line here with the effects of this on those who may be impressionable. We as humans have very dark parts to us. War after war, Gladiator pits, Cockfights, dog fights, gay bashing, racicst beatings, and the list of atrocities goes on. Story after story of "oh but they seemed so nice" I think that blurry line needs to be walked with guidance from those who have walked it and survived (Ie parents, gaurdians). Most children go through the rought times.. we come out the end changed. It's *all* the influences we encounter that shape who we are. I'm not talking about *JUST* the media, but the parents, friends, family, and the examples of those around them.. teachers, strangers, lovers, and so on. Games, TV, Music, and Movies are all a part of those influences and can not be dissmissed. Some guidance.. some sensorship should both be applied to those two young to properly absorb without taking the wrong ideas with them.

and off goes my mouth again.. I've be saturate with this for the past two years. gone over nearly every argument. I myself even at the beginning taking the wrong view of things. I find the hardest thing in it all is to cause people to understand that what I'm suggesting is not so horrible. I'm only suggesting the artist take responsiblity for their content. that they think before speaking. They have been bestowed with awesome powers of influence by those who hang on their every word or image. Just stop and think about what that message you are sending out is.. and who you are saying it to.

moo

PicturesInTheDark · Post by **PicturesInTheDark** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:22 pm

There are quite a lot of good points on there - I will just concentrate on a few. I agree with you, that artists should think about the contents they are making public (and they of course are responsible for it - the question is: how far does that responsibility go?), be it songwriter, painter or whatever.

My point about Eminem's past was not that he had a bad life - as Zyx put it quite eloquently in another thread surroundings can be mastered and should not be a reason to despair or harm other people. But I can understand that someone is angry about it happening to himself and other people. There is a right to express that, even with unusual means.

Again, there is a but - of course. Threatening people with a gun is not all right (did not know that, but I'm not following Eminem's life, so thx for the update), but as for the content... I find this really a tricky issue. Who draws the general line, where and why ? If you have a lower pain threshold for such things I find it perfectly acceptable if you avoid things that go beyond that stage, but can you honestly say that what you find inapropriate must be the same for all others?

Are you allowed to make jokes about the Second World War? Should books/songs with sexually explicit and violent contents be allowed? Is it all right to question the church and even Jesus himself? And there's more... this is just a very small example. I find that for myself, the answer to each of those questions above is basically yes - it depends on the intention. And that is maybe the core point - how can you evaluate said intention? Because that's where I would draw a line, if I think that the purpose of a song was to excuse gang rapes or murder or any other violence for example than there would be no need for even explicit lyrics, I still would not allow it (if I had to decide).

Now, how would you propose to implement this in reality. BTW: thanks for a really interesting discussion, please let me know if I am offending you, because that's not what I want. I would really like to talk this through because I want to see if a final common ground is possible with such a dangerous subject and two quite different points of view.

Regards, PitD

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:45 pm

bah, I don't get offended easily. Everyone has their right to their ideals.

all I says is read bonnie and clyde lyrics and also Guilty Conscience lyrics. They are only a portion of the lyrics I think have poor content. Both seem to try to some point justify violent actions in the end. The optimist might try to twist it and say that he is trying to be clever.. to show some sarcasm. That what he really means is the opposite of what he's saying.. i say that's trying too hard.

Usually if I like a song or and actor or what have you and the word gets ou saying something bad about them or the content of something they did. I will look into it. I don't want to support something I don't agree with and purchasing an album for instance with something I don't agree with would be doing just that. Or going to a conert etc..

anyway.. I could go no but I'm barely keeping my eye's open.

moo

PicturesInTheDark · Post by **PicturesInTheDark** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 1:40 pm

Well, not every singer has the Bruce Springsteen approach and that's perfectly all right this way. Just another example: a lot of simple, god-/earth-/marriage-/love-gloryfying, country-songs are very popular in political right wing circles, even used to emphasize their ideologies. My point is, that even things that do not openly proclaim violence (I'm leaving out whatever intention is behind for now) can be the basis for things we do not want at all to happen. (Well, some of us at least). Who's responsible here? Again: who draws the line? Good night.

Regards, PitD

Post by **Zyx** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 5:40 pm

Here's another opinion:
Responsibility has no limits as it is only a matter of consciousness: that is, lucidity upon the consequences of our acts and the will to care about it, and to assume what it takes to repair the harm we caused.
But... few people have this concern for ethos and prefer to keep with the moral, or better yet, with the legal system.
According to these easier points of view, you are only responsible of what people are convinced you are responsible (thus evading responsability is only a mediatic struggle of eloquence), or of what the law can oblige you to assume (thus converting the responsabilities to litteral rules, easily gamed by costy lawyers).
Is moral concerns about being a good boy/nice girl? Is it about being on the side of the law?
I don't think so.

Now, I think it is a very good thing to keep an inquisitive mind, to exercize critic, and anger can be the best first step to change the world and search for ideals. But preconizing violence is, at the best, idiot and irresponsable, and more often, simply criminal, as you are conscious of the bad consequences... but you make money out of it... so... you don't care and find excuses, and manipulate the opinions.

Not that I want censorship, on the contrary. But I think violent images are only a symptom, not the cause. I want my children to be responsible, caring, concerned by ethos, capable of critic, and thus discerning what is good or bad for them and the other. I don't want them to be protected by their ignorance or by rules that they had to learn by heart. Of course, as I have no children yet and maybe my reasonning is completely superficial!

Post by **Lunever** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:47 pm

Cows: I'd draw the line where real people not virtual ones are hurt. So even in the extreme example of pedophily you brought up I don't mind if someone messes around with some grafic tool to create images of his sick imagination, but I do mind if some real child has to suffer for the creation of such stuff.
And where is it exactly that you draw the line?

And yes, I do deny the influence of games & movies on real violence and crime. Don't get me wrong: Certainly such media may act as trigger for violent behaviour, but they are not the cause for it. If there is a cause for such misbehaviour, the cause will find a trigger inevitably, no matter how much censure any system enacts. So censure won't do any good to anyone, but will instead impair freedom of people who do not have cause for misbehaviour against their fellow beings.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:16 pm

Personally I find violence on tv/film whether real or not has progressively raised the 'background noise' level. Whether you want to call it desensitising or not is another matter, as is debate the exact effects. But you can't really deny the mechanisms existing. Action, in terms of story or editing, is all important now. Short sharp shocks of violence or sound or thought in a fast moving array is a large part of our entertainment and news.
It is very easy to be disconnected with it, and in the last few years now the biggest shocks posisble are being delivered jsut too keep at the edge. 'Real' people in programs just so you can try to maintain some connection, who instantly then slip into the unreal world of celebrity so in the end you don't.
And real wars now delivered on the news, covered blow for blow as close as possible to the action. The last twinge of excitement or realisation possl, as this is really real. But how long can you be deluged with that, before then it also gets lost in that unreal 2 dimensionality?

I personally don't doubt the ability of realistic violence seen or told again and again to close off the mind. Each person's world is nothing more than an illusion created by five senses...just an illusion based on reality. Certain smells certain vibrations in the medium we walk through, a tiny spectrum of energy enters our awareness and that is about it.
Only our mind can truely 'connect' us to anything beyond our own senses, there is no physics on empathy. No particles or waves that can make you care that the '3D' person you shot in greater definition is more real than the 2D person in tv resolution that was shot, that apparently no one cares that much about except to proke reactions.

I don't really want censorship as a mind should be cabaple of opening itself up or rejecting what it doens't want on its own. I have heard at least four powerful personal philosophies from people in various topics here. After 25 - 30 years, and through whichever hardships our minds can forge our own unique and worthwhile ways of looking at the world that can benefit and certainly not hurt those around us.
I would rather have a future where the tools, from a critical mind to an empathetic and open mind, came from parents and schools teahcing diversity in thought rather than conformity. To have a whole generation at the same level it took us double the time to. To be say 14 and have the same unique and strong ideas on life, and then use that as a base for actually experiencing adult life.

Ok, my mind has finished wondering, I think i'll stop there : )

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:56 pm

(foot in mouth...) "MMMMPHH!!"

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:31 pm

removed the above post due to foot in mouth disease... I've obviously offended people, for that I'm sorry. It's a shame.. I've heard a saying once.. "we must be reminded of the past so that we don't repeat it." I dunno if I fully think that.. however, I do know that having to use something seemingly politically incorect to show that something is worng seems an odd way to express your ideas.. so for that I'm sorry too.

anyway.. blah..

moo

Post by **Zyx** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:20 am

Well, I didn't find any offending content so far in the whole thread, your previous reply was firm but sustained by argumentation. Indeed I was impressed of the capacity of the people here to keep a dialog opened even with opposing or different point of views.
The lack of response is not necessarily a sign of offense, I think it was more a question of "digestion"!

Jardice · Post by **Jardice** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:19 am

Wow....I've never seen so much knoledgable topics like this before.......I feel dumb compared to this....

Looks like I need to do some more research on how some entertainent conent can effect behavior in indiviuals...

I'll stay out of this though..I have nothing to support either side..

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:26 am

(hmm).. well I can always repost it.. I saved it as I felt it had some good points and I hated having wasted so much time tinking and writing it. (shrug)

Jardice · Post by **Jardice** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:28 am

Can't blame you..I sometimes have that same problem on other topics as well.

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:08 pm

ok.. well here it is re-post as requested.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm what can I say really. We have slowly and gradualy worn smooth those laws and morals that we as small societies thousands of years ago established in order to ensure survival. Humans have violent natures. Prone to things that are truely horrible.. even with out having a sick mind. All that need be done is to be fe the wrong info over the course of our youth.

Our morals, and beliefs change over the span of our lives. Why is that? Natural evolution.. would that happen in vacuum? No, it due to those things we see, hear, and experience. Why do children believe in the boogy man? Santa claus? The easter bunny? Some one told them. usually a parent however it could be a simple as annother child in a playground telling them the story. Does it change it's validity for that child? Depends on what they learned up to that point.

As time goes on, as much as any teen seems to act like they know everything I doubt if they believe it. They are still confronted by ideas that may conflict with what they had learned up to that point or bring up new ideas they had not yet experienced. These will change them. It's all a part of development. The reasons we have put into place laws about sex, and acohol, violent movies. Has to do with that development cycle. IT's not preventing them from ever looking at something.. it's preventing them from seeing it before they have all the tools to withstand it. To not take away the wrong message.

Where do I draw the line? Where someone .. anyone is hurt emotionally or otherwise from content produced in the media. Either first hand or second hand. What about Nazist views being brodcast without the hero to tell people.. "it's not right". What if it was instead spread as it was during the war? Are the masses of Germans all messed up in the head.. was there just a lot of lead in your water supplies back then? No I doubt it.. however they were inspired by a speaker.. someone they trusted to be telling them the truth. Sometimes acts were done simply out of fear sometimes out of ignorance.

Not everyone commited to the war and there in fact were a lot of those who would work to spare the lives of the "lesser races" as they had been deemed. However, hitler knew that to get good loyal soldiers that the youth had to be the ones confronted with this imagery. It would be taught in schools. The young teens and children subjected to ideas that they had not developed strong enough morals against.

World wide it is seen as an atrocity. a very very large part of germany was responsible for these acts. It was one man.. leading them.. one man convincing them it was right. One man.. and his media. Now tell me that media has no influence on people.. tell me now that it does not aid the the enactment of crimes.

I'm sorry to play that card, I'm not doing it because you are in Germany and I hope it does not offend you. It's simply one world wide example we all know of.. in great detail. I'm not saying Germany is bad or evil, quite the contrary. I'm saying an entire country was coerced by one sick mind because he was allowed to spread his message. That message was very specific to germany. So what about someone with a message about women in general? Makes it a much larger group of people doesn't it? Not everyone will be convinced.. only those who are inclined or still ignorant of such things.. people who have not yet developed to have determined a place on that issue.

We see how the muslims can declare a holy war and off they go for the sake of god to go kill people. We see in the US even statments of evil where they should go out and bomb someone and they do without really thinking about it.

There are big examples over time.. years and years of history of single people propelling the masses to complete violent acts on their word alone. In many coutnries and cities all over the world. So how can you really deny influence of media? It is powerfull and it requires strict rules.. The person with the microphone needs to understand their power and treat it with respect.

I just can't understand how so many intelligent people can be so blind to what is so obvious to me. However, I too was blind to it at one point. So who am I to say anything about it?

Anyway, the evidence is presented. It's undeniable. One person can cause millions of people to act violently even though those people are not screwed in the head, even though they may not have done so on their own, even though they may not have ever concidered it.

So if the message is the wrong one.. do you really want those still imressionable to be hearing it?

(I warned you guys I could go on and on about this. as I said two years submersed in this.)

Dungeon Master Forum

Youth tearing apart old games

Youth tearing apart old games

ack here my mouth goes again...