A History of Video Game Controversy

Decaffeinated Jedi writes "Sex, violence, animal cruelty, and scandalous pixels -- GameSpot has posted an in-depth feature examining the history of controversy in the video game industry. The feature examines several "major offenders" dating back as far as Death Race in the arcades up through more recent games like Grand Theft Auto III and Manhunt. Also included in the feature is coverage of the so-called "retail rogues" (games controversial enough that they were pulled from the shelves), as well as a docket of game-industry lawsuits and a look at the lighter side of game controversy. Who wants to bet that that the use-confiscated-drugs-for-short-term-benefit gameplay of Midway's upcoming NARC will make the cut in future articles about video game controversy?"

Comments

More violence doesn't mean better

[hambonewilkins]

This proves that more violence doesn't necessarily make a game better.

People hem and haw about violent videogames but games like GTA are good games with violence put in.

On the other hand, excessive games like Manhunt and BMX:XXX (both mentioned in the article) have pointless violence and sex that doesn't drive the game forward. In many ways, this mirrors movies: a movie like The Matrix may be violent but has a decent story behind it. Other action films feature a lot of violence but lack a decent hook.

Violence may sell, but when the consumer realizes the lack of anything besides the violence, the game stops selling. BMX:XXX tanked, to my knowledge, as did DOA:Extreme Beach Volleyball. I think its too early to say about Manhunt (which is widely regarded as really disgusting and way too far, even by gamers).

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[WorkEmail]

I think that BMX XXX was a gimmick to sell games. I never even gave it the chance and played it. I knew it would suck.

Now GTA III on the other hand was a really great game. And the other thing that people forget to mention s that a lot of the things that are considered really offensive in games, are the things that are not a part of the game itself, but something the player can "choose" to do if he/she wants to.

A lot of those games kind of put you in a free roaming world where you can do as you wish, true, some of the in game missions are kind of bad, but it is rated M for a reason, and if your kid is under 17 and playing it, it is your fault.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[dfg5959]

Adding more violence doesn't make something better?? Guess someone forgot to inform Mel Gibson of this before making his "masterpiece".

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Ayaress]

I agree entirely. I like violence, swearing, sex, whatever in games, as long as it fits.

An English teacher of mine in high school had a saying about using foul language in writing: "You can swear all you want, but you have to earn every word, or it'll only hurt you."

All games are built on a premise. GTA was built on the premise of street crime: Drugs, prostitutes, carjacking, even low-time acts of terrorism. Wether or not its a good game, how do you capture that premise in a satisfying way WITHOUT sex, language, and violence?

BMX:XXX was something completely else though. I really don't get the premise. If the premise were bike racing, then the riders would be at least wearing appropriate clothing (Ever ride a motor cycle wearing shorts? I burned my leg on an exauhst pipe doing that), because you don't ride a motorcycle naked. If the premise were naked people then what's the point of having them riding bikes?

It didn't build on the game's premise, and frankly, it wasn't all that great to begin with - for half or less of the price, I could buy a copy of Playboy or Hustler and a bargain-rack non-naked BMX racing game.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Anonymous Coward]

I've played it, but I'm posting anonymously because I'm deeply ashamed of playing it.

Review: piece of crap.
It's a cheap ripoff of Dave Mirra/Tony Hawk/That Inline Skate Game With The Guy Who's Name I Can't Remember.

It plays like shit

Infantile humour and naked chicks are more of an embarrasment than an asset to the game.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[machine of god]

Ha ha. You don't have to beat the hooker to get your money back, but admit it, you've done it.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Ondo]

BMX:XXX tanked, to my knowledge, as did DOA:Extreme Beach Volleyball.

No, DOA Volleyball sold fairly well. A brief googling shows it sold 73,000 copies in it's first day in Japan, which I think is somewhere around a fifth of the number of Xboxes sold there. Last April it was "approaching 500,000" units sold worldwide.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[cayenne8]

"Adding more violence doesn't make something better?? Guess someone forgot to inform Mel Gibson of this before making his "masterpiece"."

Well...as I understand it...crucifixion (sp?) was a pretty messy and violent business. If he did an accurate portrayal of it...then yes..the movie would be quite violent.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[thefinite]

Wether or not its a good game, how do you capture that premise in a satisfying way WITHOUT sex, language, and violence?

The point that opponents of GTA and other such games would make: Why capture that premise *at all*?

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[tx_mgm]

It's a cheap ripoff of Dave Mirra/Tony Hawk/That Inline Skate Game With The Guy Who's Name I Can't Remember.

Uh....BMX:XXX was going to be Dave Mirra 4 until he pulled his name off of it. It's not a ripoff, it WAS going to be the actual name-attached game until he saw the (use Kyle's mom's voice here) FILTHY TOILET HUMOR.

That said, yes, the game sucks. And, yeah, I bought it....used. Mostly because I collect games...but hey, 15 bucks...heh.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Jagasian]

It is all relative. The original GTA was NOT considered to be a great game by many people, especially the professional game reviewers. I distinctly remember reading professional reviews claim that GTA was a gimmic to sell games as you state about BMX XXX.

At the time of GTA's release, I couldn't believe how the critics couldn't see the brilliance of GTA.

Maybe society and culture changes to the point where stuff like GTA becomes acceptable enough to be considered a good game as was the case with the transition from GTA to GTA3.

GTA and GTA3 are nearly the same exact game, with the main exceptions being lack of multiplayer and the presence of better graphics and sound in GTA3. Also the physics model was improved in GTA3 by going from a 4 point model to an 8 point model. Hence cars could roll in addition to spin out. Other than those relatively evolutionary improvements, the 1st and 3rd in the series are exactly the same game. The both have the same theme, open-ended gameplay, violence, parody, etc...

Yet the first was a "gimmic" while the third is a "classic"? So society is definitely fickle.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Nicolas Pillot]

> [...] the game stops selling. BMX:XXX tanked, to my knowledge, as did DOA:Extreme Beach Volleyball

Yes, but they reached stores. Sam'n'Max2 would not have that fate, although it has everything needed to make huge sales.

I know, offtopic. But i cannot accept that.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[OblvnDrgn]

GTA and GTA3 are nearly the same exact game, with the main exceptions being lack of multiplayer and the presence of better graphics and sound in GTA3.

I think you are seriously trivializing the changes between the first and third games. The switch between 2D and 3D alone makes it practically a different game, not to mention most of what makes the third game so significantly better is how immersive the game world is. All of the little improvements to the storyline and setting make the game that much more involving, which is part of what got the game such rave reviews, even if that's not what everyone is looking for.

In any case, I'll take the same points you made and come to a different conclusion. I don't think society became that much more accepting as time passed -- Postal 1 and 2 were reviewed much the same way, that is, badly -- but the first GTA was an open-ended game with a great premise and a decent action-based execution, and the third one was an all-around better game with the same premise, and that's what it takes to become a "classic."

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[hambonewilkins]

But perhaps Sam and Max 2Fast2Furious will reach stores.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[TimboJones]

If only, if only GTA3 had multiplayer -- then it would be a better game than GTA the original.

I played single-player GTA maybe 1-2% of my total playing time.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[WorkEmail]

What is all this talk of beating??? I thought the only way to get your money back was to roll over her with a tank.... lmao.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Jagasian]

The original GTA was 3D, with the exception of vehicles and people. Some aspects of the game required driving motorcycles up ramps fast enough to launch yourself onto other buildings, islands, etc... too slow and you slam into the side of whatever you were aiming at. Play the game, it is clearly 3D. In fact, compare GTA3 in the bird's eye camera view to the original GTA.

The improved graphics and sound are not what made GTA3 a classic. What makes GTA3 and the rest of the series great is the open-ended gameplay. If gamers really wanted the best graphics and sound they would watch a modern action movie. Surely the cars and people look more realistic in movies than they do in modern video games. The thing is that gamers are playing games first and foremost because of the interactivity. The GTA series has loads of it: hence the open-ended gameplay.

Also, I disagree that GTA3 had a better story than GTA. They are nearly the same. The Liberty City part of the original GTA, and GTA3 have the same story and tell it in the same way. Now, GTA3 Vice City, definitely improved upon the story and continuity of the game, and I think it paid off. Lets face it, you didn't feel like an important part of the story in either GTA or GTA3, but in GTA3:VC you felt like you were the story.

However, many a reviewer dogged GTA3:VC has being too derivative... yet the same reviewers claimed that GTA3 was "revolutionary". Anybody that was there with the series from the begining knows that the series has mostly made evolutionary improvements with each release (barring such things as removing multiplayer).

Maybe the critics have a very short memory? I think the more probable case is that most gamers were introduced to the series with GTA3.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[WorkEmail]

GTA 1 through III were all good games. I do not think that the actual game is as great as it is said to be, I think the violence and the open endedness of it, and the freedom to do what you want, makes it seem cooler than it really is. The missions get fairly repetative, get this, blow that up, kill him, follow that. And that's about it.

Don't get me wrong, I own all of the GTA games, and they are great games, all classics. And GTA was one of the first of it's kind.

The first and Third games ARE almost the same game. Try this, in GTA III you can switch to CLASSIC VIEW, which is the overhead top view exactly the view of the first one. Play it like that once, it is eerie.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[WorkEmail]

The other cheap rip off, and a game genre that I think all suck and will forever suck are Surfing games.

The one exception in some old NES game I played for a long time but cannot remember the name of.

Anyone remember Skate or Die II?

I have not played BMX XXX but I figured it would play horribly.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[DeadScreenSky]

Violence may sell, but when the consumer realizes the lack of anything besides the violence, the game stops selling. BMX:XXX tanked, to my knowledge, as did DOA:Extreme Beach Volleyball. I think its too early to say about Manhunt (which is widely regarded as really disgusting and way too far, even by gamers).

What violence does DOA Volleyball have, exactly?

And it sold really well, actually - maybe the fact that it is actually a pretty good game (taken for what it is - a vacation/relationship sim) had something to do with that. Creating such an addictive yet massively relaxing game is pretty amazing.

(Oh yeah, and women in bathing suits isn't 'sex' by any reasonable standards I can think of.)

And honestly, I picked up BMXXX for a few bucks and it isn't at all a bad game. Not an awesome game, but certainly not crap. Its main problem, IMO, was that it was really freaking hard - it was obviously designed for experienced BMX players, which is a strange design decision considering how they tried to attract such a large audience. Some of the humor is really funny, too, and I am not remotely a fan of potty humor... Certainly funnier than the 'jokes' in your average Tony Hawk game.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Ayaress]

Because it's fun? Because it translates remarkably well into a straight-forward video game form? More likely this: Because being a gangster is, and has been for decades, as common a part of most childhood fantasies as being a cowboy or an astronaut?

Currently in development

[loserbert]

Grand Theft Auto:Sheep Fscker
Quake IV:Disembowelment Edition
and my favorite....
Catholic Priest Online

I love video games....

Re:Currently in development

[WorkEmail]

If you like those, go to www.somethingawful.com and check out the Photoshop Phriday section, they do a cool post on Fake Games once in a while, and they are really really funny.

Re:Currently in development

[Mr. Piddle]

Catholic Priest Online

I think the Catholic Priest series peaked with the release of Cradle Robber. However, Online might really take off if its rumoured better graphics and interactive features are for real. We'll just have to wait and see.

What?!

[falzer]

I think XEvil deserves a mention.

It's Really Just A Statement About The Direction

[Naked Chef]

society in the U.S. has been going the past 20-30 years...away from any conception of personal accountability or responsibility. We look for someone or something to blame society's ills on, when WE'RE the problem. Frivilous lawsuits related to lack of common sense, warnings on music and video games, "outrage" over the tiniest slights or perceived lack of "political correctness" in word or deed... Maybe getting offtopic a bit, but video game controvery is just one example. An interesting read, kinda sad though.

Blue Max

[Sumocide]

The olde C64 top view airplane shooter Blue Max is (yes is, not was) banned in Germany. For it's controversial gameplay which involves shooting 4 pixel wide enemies, 80's style.

Only effect the ban had was that every youth absolutely had to copy the game.

Re:Blue Max

[eddy]

Good game. Reminds me of Zaxxon, both of which were some of the first games I ever played.

Ah... Barbarian, Commando Libya, both sources of moral panic at the time. There's also that old game... what was its name.. General Custer?

Re:Blue Max

[jayayeem]

Vaguely remember the game. I'm thinking the ban was related to the German ban on Nazi related themes.

Re:Blue Max

[goldspider]

Of course, Blue Max was set during World War I. No Nazis here. Tho I do suspect the ban was indeed political.

Re:Blue Max

[AceCaseOR]

Um... I own a copy of Blue Max. It was set during World War I, not World War II, and you're playing a RAF pilot anyway (every game starts with the end of "God Save the Queen").

Re:Blue Max

[dave420]

What the heck was that you just wrote?? Do you often write really, incredibly, obviously unfounded blanket statements about entire developed countries?

"Germans have a history of building up a meticulous and highly ordered societies, then burning up everything in a orgy of violence and mayhem"

What history was that? Are you talking about the 1st and 2nd world wars? If you've studied history, you'd realise they were part of the same war, a European (and eventually global) 'civil' war.

Germany has learned more than most countries, and has decided to err on the side of caution when it comes to dictatorial implications or nazi imagery, and this was an example of that. Anything regarding the world wars has to be presented in such a way as to educate the viewer about the dangers of [nazi] totalitarianism, as opposed to glorifying it. Hence, nazi swastikas and other imagery are banned in Germany, unless there's a really good reason to have it (ie museums, etc.).

Funnily enough, a video game featuring Germans fighting other countries was looked at with some scrutiny.

Saying this is as simple as "get rid of the red square otherwise we'll see WWIII" is unjustly trivialising a very complex and deep situation.

Germany has a very strong technical sector, and saying they don't innovate is ridiculous. Just thinking a statement like that is even logically viable shows a great insight into your perspective ;) It's akin to someone saying "All the French surrender on first hearing a shot" or "All muslims are terrorists" or "All Americans are addicted to twinkies and murder".

Re:Blue Max

[TwistedGreen]

Germans have a history of building up a meticulous and highly ordered societies, then burning up everything in a orgy of violence and mayhem.

jesus, that's hilarious. can I quote you on that?

Re:Blue Max

[STrinity]

The olde C64 top view airplane shooter Blue Max is (yes is, not was) banned in Germany.

Hey, I used to play that game when I lived in Germany. And I had a pirated copy, too! Man, I was so 1337 when I was eight.

Re:Blue Max

[STrinity]

Vaguely remember the game. I'm thinking the ban was related to the German ban on Nazi related themes.

Yes, when I think about games involving biplanes, I think Nazis.

Re:Blue Max

[hesiod]

> It's akin to someone saying "All the French surrender on first hearing a shot" or "All muslims are terrorists" or "All Americans are addicted to twinkies and murder".

Hey, screw you, man! I am addicted to twinkies & murder!

Re:Blue Max

[Creepy]

My first reaction after reading this was "mmm Twinkies" but then I pulled my head together before I got to my orgy of bloodshed :)

For the most part, I think your post is right on the money, but I have to disagree with you on one thing - you can't really call World War I (formerly the Great War) and World War II the same war because they were a generation apart, had different mitigating circumstances and were started by different countries in different countries, and for different reasons. Several factors from the end of World War I did cause Hitler/Nazis to rise to power and start World War II (which is probably why you are tying them together), but many of the issues were resolved or being resolved (inflation, poverty, unemployment) in Germany well before the invasion of Poland and the start of the war. Also note that even the invasion of Poland didn't really start the second World War or even cause much of a reaction - yes, Poland's allies Britain and France declared war two days after the invasion, but neither one did anything because they feared starting another Great War (which is exactly what Hitler was expecting). The world didn't wake up to Hitler's aspirations until Germany invaded France several months later that the real world war started (and incidentally, the French relied a bit too heavily on the Maginot Line + "impassible" Ardennes forest and probably were beaten easier than the Poles, Paris being captured in 2 days, where Warsaw was 2 weeks). Both the "Polish cavalry charge" and "French Surrender after hearing a shot" were propoganda the German Wehrmacht used to inspire the people and troops, which worked awfully well, since people still think those today.

HISTORY BACKGROUND STUFF - keep out if you don't care!
--
Some history, for the less informed - at the end of the Great War, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles and cede the mineral rich Saarland to the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations) and the valuable coal mines to the French (giving them significant influence in the region). The debt from the war reparations, loss of the mineral rich mining region, and loss of wartime jobs caused mass inflation and devaluation currency. The Nazi party used the regional instability to push forward their agenda and promised to restored stability if they took power (which they did in basically the same way as Stalin - by killing people). After taking power, Hitler stopped reparations for the Great War (a violation the Treaty of Versailles, but was allowed because of the countries' inner turmoil and lauded by the German people) and retook the Saarland (technically, got them to rejoin, but there was a lot of expulsion of foreigners and Nazi troops had basically moved in, anyway). The Nazi's then turned inward and began putting people to work and restoring the currency before the outbreak of the war.

The invasion of Poland and start of World War II may have been to further boost the economy - Germany was building tanks, weapons, and airplanes in an effort to get their people to work, and needed an excuse to build more and put more people to work (America basically did the same thing to get out of the Great Depression). The Nazis also figured out a way to build a large army quickly - train only officers under the 100000 unit limit imposed by the Treaty of Versailles and have them train troops when they decided to break the treaty (thus, they quickly built a large army). After breaking the treaty, they needed to figure out a way to go to war, so why not target a culture/people that they wanted exterminated, anyway, and especially one that would close a flank (Russia was viewed as a socialist ally)? Germany staged an invasion from Poland using concentration camp prisoners wearing Polish uniforms and claimed Poland was invading them, instigating the attack and delaying reaction.

In many ways, I think the invasion was to create a "friendly flank" by bridging the socialist Soviet Union (which also invaded Poland two we

Re:Blue Max

[JahToasted]

My history isn't that good, but Hitler and Stalin were never friends. The first group the nazis killed were the communists. Stalin wanted to go to war against Hitler's Germany when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia (yeah I know I spelled it wrong). But the Soviet Union was incapable of taking on Germany alone at that time and needed support from France and Britain. Instead, Britain and France opted for "Peace in Our Time". Whether they were being cowardly in appeasing Hitler, or just buying time to prepare for the inevitable war is open to debate.

After Czechoslovakia, the Soviets knew that they could not count on the support of Britain and France for help. So Stalin made a secret Alliance to split Poland with Hitler, so that Hitler would leave them alone for a while. Hitler's plan was to take out France and Britain and then turn around and attack Stalin. Stalin's plan was to let the British and French occupy Hitler's time for a while so he could prepare for when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.

The Nazis took France in a matter of days, and probably would have taken Britain too if it weren't for the English Channel and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Germany lost the Battle of Britain, and had no way to attack Britain. They knew the Red Army would soon be strong enough to defeat them, so they attacked first. They were defeated by the Red Army, and lost the war.

Hitler and Stalin were always enemies, and despite what you may have heard WWII was really a war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union was an interesting bit of strategy, but both sides knew it was only temporary.

Re:Blue Max

[Creepy]

You're right in that Hitler and Stalin had a secret agreement to divvy Poland in the early part of the war (oh, yeah, the secret agreement). "Peace in our Time" I think was earlier - maybe the excuse for not going to war when Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles, or even the invasion of Poland. Both declared war on September 3, but neither really did much until about May of 1940 (nearly a year later) when Germany invaded France and Chamberlain resigned as British PM and Churchill took over (although I do remember some troops going to Norway, which was earlier, but I don't remember who or where).

As for some of the rest of your post, not really correct. First off, I think you meant Yugoslavia (the Czech republic wasn't formed until later), but that wasn't invaded until 1941. Germany could probably have conquered Britain, but they would have needed a Normandy like invasion. Hitler opted for isolation (destroying supply ships) and rocketing/bombing them into surrender rather than sacrifice a large number of troops. His generals incorrectly predicted Britain would crack under bombardment in just a few months. It probably didn't hurt that the British knew of their plans (with the cracked Enigma codes). France also knew Germany planned to invade them (also through Enigma) but didn't think the Ardennes were crossable.

Hitler and Stalin weren't enemies at the beginning of the war, but there definitely were tensions between the two countries later on. I would suspect that this had more to do with fear of a united Europe (with a warmonger at the helm) than anything else. I also suspect Stalin was expecting Germany to be defeated early on and they basically would get free land out of the deal (part of Poland).

I disagree about the war being a war between the USSR and Nazi Germany - but I do agree that the Americans weren't of much help, aside from maybe saving a few million lives by providing targets (it was a very green army). The Allied invasion at Normandy was a necessity to avoid communist rule of Europe, though, as the USSR would have claimed everything they conquered a satellite nation or part of their own, had they won (some US generals wanted to push on and attack Russia).

What about the old...

[Chris_Stankowitz]

japanese pr0n games for nintendo? Did anyone really get off to these things? Has nintendo ever made any statements about these games? Do they make games like this for current consoles?

Re:What about the old...

[DreadSpoon]

If you're that desparate, there are plenty of sites online with that kind of content. ;-)

Re:What about the old...

[dancingmad]

There are several unlicensed hentai games for the Gameboy Advance. Tsuki no Hime comes to mind. It seems to be one company putting them all out for the GBA.

Don't ask me how I know ;)

Re:What about the old...

[Ayaress]

There are some things about the hentai games for the SNES and GB(A) though:

1. Nintendo didn't license them, and they already say, "Don't play games with out the Nintendo Seal of Approval." I doubt they'll comment on unlicensed games.

2. (As far as I know) none of them have been brought to the US (at least not openly - you can't buy hentai games in the store like you can in Japan, you have to order them), and Japan is a far more open society, both to new ideas and technologies, but in this case more open to forms of entertainment. There isn't a social stigma around pornography in Japan to the extent that there is in the US.

People who don't like it actually participate in capitalism the way it was INTENDED to work: They vote with their money and don't buy it. They don't sue the companies that made it (at least not anywhere near as much as we do). The people who do like it do the same, and they buy it, and it continues to get made.

Back to the US: It bugs me how people are so opposed to pornography. If you compare a few polls about how many people like looking at pornographic materials and how many people think they should they should be illegal, you'll see there's a striking overlap - people who buy porn, but say it should be illegal.
Porn is considered so socially unacceptable that if you ask people, they'll say it should be illegal even though they have a limited edition of Debbi Does Dallas hidden under their couch. It's like the smoker who says (between weezes and coughs and lighting a new ciggarette) that the tobacco companies should be forced out of business.

Re:What about the old...

[theskipper]

es as a atter f fact watc e rgt w

st a sec...

Re:What about the old...

[Bartacus]

>>japanese pr0n games for nintendo?
>>Did anyone really get off to these things?

Yes, but only "Custer's Revenge" on the 2600.

Did you see the pixels on her! Hubba, hubba!

Re:What about the old...

[cayenne8]

"...even though they have a limited edition of Debbi Does Dallas hidden under their couch."

Ick!! Man...if you're gonna own some porn...don't do the old bad 70's stuff....ugly naked people that are WAY too hairy....

:-)

But, I guess it IS a collectors item....

Re:What about the old...

[STrinity]

Japanese pr0n? What a newbie. Back in my day, all we had was 8-bit nude girls and text-adventure pr0n.

I wonder why...

[Dreadlord]

... nobody complains about movies although they had controversial elements like violence and sex much earlier than video games ever existed.

Re:I wonder why...

[Ayaress]

They do, and have for a long time. When I was young (early 80's), violent movies were the big target. Video games are newer. Holywood is established and entrenched, and it's unlikely any amount of litigation will budge them an inch. Video games are getting there, but there's still enough give in the market that they can win little victories here and there.

Re:I wonder why...

[corbettw]

nobody complains about movies

Um, you really need to get out more.

A quick search for movie violence turns up over 1,750,000 pages. I'm guessing more than one of those is a complaint.

Also, where do you think the MPAA rating system came from?

Re:I wonder why...

[log0n]

Seriously.. I mean.. look at all the violence-specific controversy surrounding The Passion of teh Christ (currently in theaters).

Parental Content CD stickers, moving rating systems, TV-Y through TV-MA, it's all because someone at some point put pressure on the group releasing the product.

Re:I wonder why...

[log0n]

movie rating systems.. not moving.. DOY!

Re:I wonder why...

[Have Blue]

The movie industry is about 100 years older than the game industry, so all these controversies have had time to sort themselves out. All the really controversial movies happened in the 40s and 50s, back when you weren't allowed to show direct violence (take a close look at the shower scene in Psycho), men topless, or a married couple sleeping in the same bed.

Re:I wonder why...

[I8TheWorm]

Yeah, but it hasn't stopped folks from spending their money on violent movies. It's amazing how much the Passion of the Christ has made, and I'd assume quite a bit from the conservative folks who complain loudly about movie/game violence.

Re:I wonder why...

[I8TheWorm]

Whoops, there was supposed to be an HREF in there.

Re:I wonder why...

[corbettw]

Yes, but the violence in "The Passion of the Christ" isn't senseless violence, nor does it glorify violence. I think that's what most people who complain about "violent movies" are really complaining about.

Though there are plenty of people who are complaining about the gore and violence in "The Passion".

Re:I wonder why...

[I8TheWorm]

I hear ya, but I think what I was trying to convey, though didn't come out and say it, is who decides wether the violence is senseless or not?

In The Passion of the Christ, some argue that it's more violent than they believe actually happened. In other recent movies, maybe the violence makes sense to others.

In reality, movies are a prime example of capitalism at work.... you voice your opinion by either being part of the gross revenue or not. Personally, that's where I think the complaints about violence ought to stay.

Pulling Games

[YomikoReadman]

It's all well and good that there are groups out there that will crusade night and day to get games pulled because they are violent and graphic and will scar their children for life.

I want to know where the groups are to get games pulled for being absoulute pieces of garbage, and leave deep mental scars simply by existing.

Re:Pulling Games

[CashCarSTAR]

The ironic thing is that I'd be willing to bet good money that the members of those groups pulled their kids to see "The Passion of the Christ"...

Talk about violence and scars for life...

Re:Pulling Games

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between purposeful violence and senseless violence - of course it's still way too much for kids.

(Especially kids like my little cousin, who got nightmares from the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz :))

Re:Pulling Games

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't a Christian the violence will have little meaning. From what I understand crucifixian is a pretty nasty way to die - obviously. But then, the movie isn't about those slaves. A movie that featured entirely people being executed for their crimes would be grim and pointless, but just because YOU don't find any positive meaning in the movie doesn't mean that a very large number of people won't.

Re:Pulling Games

[nebenfun]

If you can't see the difference in the violence in let's say beating up hookers for money (GTA) and historical violence like saving private ryan, the passion, schindler's list, etc, you have a poor sense of perspective.

I think "those groups" have bigger problems than boycotting video game companies, tv and disney, etc...

but there IS a difference between GTA and the Passion, and it wouldn't be hypocritical for a Christian parent to refuse their child GTA but make sure they watch the aforementioned movies.

Re:Pulling Games

[rblum]

That difference, of course, only exists if you're Christian. If you're not, they're both multimedia works about violence against fictional characters.

Oh, in GTA, you're actually in control, so you have to make a moral choice, while in Passion, you just absorb.

Nope, violence is violence. Just because it happened in the past doesn't make it any different.

Apart from that, it's not about "my right to violence". It's about freedom of speech. Steven Spielberg wants to make a movie about people getting blown up (SPR), I want to make a game about blowing people up - why exactly should it be OK to censor one and not the other?

Re:Pulling Games

[OzPeter]

That may be so, but The Passion is rated R .. and from what I have heard for a good reason due to the use of violence as a shock tool in order to make a point about the sacrifice that Jesus made. The (quite reasonable by the sound of it) R rating is meant to protect children from just wandering in and seeing it.

Yet there *are* many examples of Christian parents taking their kids to see this movie without having seen it before themselves. This is totally irresponsible and I feel an extremely hypocritical action on behalf of those parents.

There was also the story this week of the 6th grade teacher who showed long excerpts of this movie to their class without the parents knowledge/permission.

Such blind belief that because its Christian, that any amount or portrayed violence is acceptable is worse than what is in a video game, because the adults are *forcing* their childrento see it.

OT There are a lot of interesting stories in the Bible that would not make it to any sermon due to the extreme levels of sex and violence. Check out "The X rated Bible" for more info :-)

Re:Pulling Games

[WorkEmail]

And some other group to help me get my 50 dollars back after I buy an All-Day pass to some CRAP CARNIVAL they call a game.

Re:Pulling Games

[infinite9]

As a member of one of those groups, i'd like to chime in. I went to see the movie in theaters and took my 12 year old daughter. After seeing it, I'll let my 10 and 8 year old daughters see it also. I think they have the maturity to handle the violence in that context. I'm not about to say that it's ok for any 8 or 10 year old. I won't let my five year old see it either. That being said, I think it's ridiculous to ban video games, tv shows, music, or movies to protect the children. It's my job to filter what they have access to. This is supposed to be a free society.

Re:Pulling Games

[dave420]

What's the difference? GTA didn't happen, "The Passion" certainly didn't happen like that, and "Saving Private Ryan" had about as much historical insight as my lunch did.

Seriously, just because it looks (or even claims to be) fact-based, doesn't mean to say it is.

Re:Pulling Games

[Qrlx]

but there IS a difference between GTA and the Passion, and it wouldn't be hypocritical for a Christian parent to refuse their child GTA but make sure they watch the aforementioned movies.

I have to say, I disagree with that. There is little of "religious value" in The Passion.

The Passion is really just an excuse to show a ton of violence and suffering. By only focusing on the last 12 hours of Big J's life, you don't have the chance to see a character arc, or learn anything about WHY he's (willingly) being tortured and executed.

The fact is (well, the dogma is) that Jesus deliberately and freely returned to Jerusalem with full knowledge that he would be put to death. It is this selfless act of transcendence that Christians should be focusing on, not the ensuing orgy of violence.

Re:Pulling Games

[Mr. Piddle]

If you can't see the difference in the violence in let's say beating up hookers for money (GTA) and historical violence like saving private ryan, the passion, schindler's list, etc, you have a poor sense of perspective.

Depictions of historical violence are much more disturbing yet are much much more important for us to see, because it was real. As I get older, I become more and more suprised at the casualness of documentary series like Discovery Wings, because as nice as B-17s and P-51s were, most became flying graveyards for their crews. What are a tail-gunner's last thoughts as the airplane crumples around him and sinks into 2000 feet of ocean?

Historical violence is glossed over too much, and the more people understand it, the more we understand just how important avoiding war is.

Re:Pulling Games

[ScooterBill]

Yeah violence is violence.

I had a long email conversation with a member of some religious right group who was trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. This person used quote after quote from the bible showing how God condones the killing of people in the "right" circumstance. However, the quotes in the bible that condemn violence were conveniently forgotten by this person.

In the end, we all make our own decisions. One person's rational logic is another person's whacko crazy way of thinking.

"We're not gonna make it, are we?"
- Terminator II

Re:Pulling Games

[Golias]

Having seen "The Passion," I gotta say that the violence, while certainly explicit, has been dramatically overstated by a lot of people for some reason. It's a movie about the slow and methodical execution of one person. How Roger Ebert can call it the most violent movie he's ever seen, mere months after the blood-soaked release of "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" tells me that either his memory is not very good, or else the emotional impact of the crucifiction made the violence in The Passion harder for him to watch. (Also, "The Passion of the Christ" lacked campy 70s music which perhaps would have provided a lighter mood... but something tells me that it would have taken the film in entirely different direction than Gibson had intended.)

There really wasn't anything in "The Passion" that a typical American teen couldn't handle. The PG-13 rating was invented specifically for "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," a movie in which a man has his heart ripped one of the vilians is liquified by a rock crusher. The scenes of Christ being whipped, lugging the cross around, and bleeding all over everything were really no more shocking than that, especially when you consider that it was a depiction of recorded events which you really couldn't convincingly show any other way, rather than a summer action flick with buckets of blood added for pure shock value.

Re:Pulling Games

[Deliveranc3]

There is no diffrence.

You are obviously thinking of "Good wars" which means you don't know what the losers were trying to accomplish.

Historical violence, Which is noteably cautionary though not as important to todays youth as cautioning them against gang violence and crime.

Or perhaps it's just not cinematic for you, I admit the main character could have cried a little at the end. I'll see what I can do in future game development efforts.

Re:Pulling Games

[handslikesnakes]

Mohammed, OK. Jesus, maybe. But there is significant extra-biblical evidence for Moses? Where?

I mean, we don't even have evidence of the Exodus.

Re:Pulling Games

[Razor Blades are Not]

Well, the premise Jesus != fiction is also debatable.
There is significant question as to whether Jesus actually existed, notably since there is a distinct lack of first century writings about him. Certainly if he accomplished all that he did in his lifetime, one might expect more evidence of it.
But that is a different topic for another day.

Moses and the exodus is even harder to pin down.

Re:Pulling Games

[irix]

"The Passion" certainly didn't happen like that

Certainly? Says you?

"Saving Private Ryan" had about as much historical insight as my lunch did

Apparently your lunch has more historical insight than you do. The characters is Ryan may have been fictional, but the events and surroundings that were the backdrop for the story could probably have not been more real. It gives the viewer incredible and disturbing insight into what Omamha Beach and a firefight in Normandy must have been like. Just because it wasn't a documentary doesn't mean that it doesn't teach you a lesson about history.

If you can't see the difference between senseless violence for the sake of selling video games and the violence in Saving Private Ryan then I really feel sorry for you. I'm not opposed to GTA per se (I think parents should make their own choices about what their children see), but let's call a spade a spade.

Re:Pulling Games

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Jesus may have been real, however, I'd consider Mel Gibson's portrayal as mostly fictional, just like his portrayal of William Wallace.

Re:Pulling Games

[Creepy]

actually, PG-13 was invented BECAUSE OF Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (and Gremlins), not FOR IJ&tToD. The first PG-13 movie was Red Dawn.

Re:Pulling Games

[CPlusPlusOwnsYou]

I hope that 6th grade teacher was at a private school? NO TEACHER should be preaching their values to students in public school. Do they realize that the majority of students come from different backgrounds and religions? Passion of the Christ IS a fictional movie based off a fictional book.

Re:Pulling Games

[10101001 10101001]

> Yet there *are* many examples of Christian parents taking their kids to see this movie without having seen it before themselves. This is totally irresponsible and I feel an extremely hypocritical action on behalf of those parents.

The obvious answer is to force your children to watch porn. Then, try to ban them reading the Bible. I'm sure that'll just make them read all the porn and violence in the Bible instead of going off to jerk off to various pornos.

Seriously, I don't think it anymore hypocritical to vividly describe (by simply reading) Christ's execution as it is to watch it presented from a small group's interpretation. Of course, if half way through the film it turned into a porno, maybe they could let the kids stay anyways...

Re:Pulling Games

[Danse]

How Roger Ebert can call it the most violent movie he's ever seen, mere months after the blood-soaked release of "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" tells me that either his memory is not very good, or else the emotional impact of the crucifiction made the violence in The Passion harder for him to watch.

It's probably because there is a perceived difference between realistic violence and over-the-top fantasy/action violence. The most violent film I can remember seeing lately is also coincidentally a Mel Gibson film. I'm referring to We Were Soldiers. That film was pretty gruesome in its depictions of the battles. It seemed quite realistic though, and I believe did a good job of conveying the horror of war. I sure wouldn't take kids to see it though.

Re:Pulling Games

[Slider451]

Excellent comparison ('We Were Soldiers' vs. 'Passion'). Show 'Soldiers' to a person who had family or friends die in war, or who are currently in harm's way, and I bet you'd get a pretty strong reaction to the violence.

The violence review for 'Passion' was obviously made in the context of who was depicted on screen (Christ) and the target audience (i.e. not typical Kill Bill fans).

Though Golias is not alone in having watched both Kill Bill and Passion (I'll be in that club soon enough), I suspect that's not a large demographic.

Controversy misplaced

[pieterh]

The standard answer when youths "go bad" is to search for the evil influences that twist their minds.
It's bullshit. Young minds do not need violent video games to give them ideas. What they need is decent supporting social contexts to show them the alternatives.
Society has to address the "economics of behavior", as one /. comment put it. Mass-production education, absent parents, junk food and junk society... these warp minds. Violent video games? Diversions that keep kids off the street and most likely beneficial insofar as they provide a release mechanism.
But... hey, it's easier to blame the victims than address the real causes of social problems.

Re:Controversy misplaced

[gbjbaanb]

I remember back a few years when 2 youths committed suicide, and they happened to enjoy Judas Priest's music. Naturally the parents took JP to the courts (who were found blameless BTW).

One commentator at the time remarked that it was a sad time when the parents took more interest in their kids when they thought they might win compensation than they ever did when the kids were alive.

I figure this is the problem, anything that someone starts to shout about has less to do with the issue at hand, than it does with that person wanting acclaim, money, or publicity.

Re:Controversy misplaced

[pedrop357]

Brain also misplaced.

You forgot to mention that as video games have gotten more violent and realistic, youth crime has hit rick bottom.

Young minds need to explore death in a fantasy context, so they can control their demons. An excellent book about stuff like this is "Killing Monsters" (forgot who the author is).

Mass-production education, absent parents, junk food and junk society... these warp minds.

They've warped minds to the point that youth crime is way down, drug deaths are even rarer then they were 15 years ago, teen pregnancy is down. In fact, despite all the mind warping, all things negative teenage are down, but the same thing cannot be said for people in thier 30s and 40s-crime rate up. If you don't believe me, check out the FBI's UCR for the last 10 years.

Diversions that keep kids off the street and most likely beneficial insofar as they provide a release mechanism.

The kids who could benefit from the diversions won't use them and come from families that won't use them. The kids affected and generally forced into these diversions don't and never did need them. They just lose their ability to manage their own time and plan their own activities.

To put it succinctly: The kids are alright, in fact they're much better then anyone says.

Re:Controversy misplaced

[jdelisle]

junk food warps minds? i guess it's time to put away the doritos...

Re:Controversy misplaced

[KingGuru]

If it's the same case I'm thinking about, I saw a tv-program about it. Some parts of Judas Priest's songs played backwards, sounded something like "Just do it", meaning "Commit suicide". Judas Priest's response was, first of all: "Why would anyone buy an album and listen to it baskwards". Secondly they spend a night listening to all of their albums backwards and found things like "Mama wants candy" and similar stuff, which closed the case. Quite funny imo.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Gaming Controvosy

[Un0r1g1nal]

Games are becoming more and more like the film industry, seeing just how much they can get away with and still make it to mainstream market. Also like the film industry they have to have as much violence, nearly nakid pixels, and if you can get lots of swearing in the narrative... all the better.

I remember when games didn't need all this crap added to them to make them good to play .. like the first couple of the dizzy series, and time and magik.. great games...

Think I will go dig my emulator out and have another go... you can see a field, exits are [north] [east] and [south]

Re:Gaming Controvosy

[ddsoul]

... Also like the film industry, it's bringing in loads of cash, infact, even more than the film industry is in the past few years.

They took siezed my cardboard box!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who wants to bet that that the use-confiscated-drugs-for-short-term-benefit gameplay of Midway's upcoming NARC will make the cut in future articles about video game controversy?"

You mean like the gubbemint's use-confiscated-"alledged drug assests"-as-revenue-enhancement-for-short-term-ben ifit is contreversial?

Re:What about Custer's Revenge?

[shaunyb]

Custer's Revenge

the maker (Mystique) made several other games that used the same characters. the plot was always the same: make it across the screen, insert youself into the woman, and hit the buttons really really fast (humping).

Re:What about Custer's Revenge?

[Lukey Boy]

It's in the article.

Optionally

[andih8u]

Since you're the parent, then you should be able to tell your child not to play these offensive games. Asking the government, wal-mart, or EA to do your parenting for you is absolutely ridiculous. Its not like these games don't have a big rating label on the front of the box; optionally, you could always just look around on the internet to get a pretty good idea of the content, or most shockingly of all, just watch them play the damn thing. These people are letting their children be the parents, then blaming someone else because they can't ever be bothered to show any interest in what their kids are doing. You're the one paying for the game...decide if they can have it or not.

Re:Optionally

[canajin56]

A friend of mine's older sister would buy anything for her kids, who were like 10 and 5 at the time. Although the older one got his pellet gun taken away because he kept shooting out the car and house windows. But the younger one got to keep his, since he was mostly good with it. But they certainly get all the violent video games they want. Why? Because otherwise they wouldn't like her. Last time she wouldn't because they didn't have the money, the 5 year old said "I hate you!" so she bought it. When she wouldn't get them icecream before dinner, they said they would kill her so she bought it for them.

They've learned they can do anything to the babysitter and they won't get in trouble. Last time she took their precious Playstation away for fighting, so they wedged the bedroom door closed with a chair while she was putting it in the closet. She tried to call the parents but they cut the phone line! She climbed out the window but they had locked the front door. Then they started shooting at her. She ran 2 miles to the next door neighbors (They live in the boonies, you see) and the mom came home and yelled at the babysitter for bothering her and taking their games away, then bought the kids ice-cream. (They didn't even have to threaten to kill her this time!)

On top of they, she is convinced the older one is the smartest person on the planet. He gets straight A's in elementry school, you see...mostly because she does all his homework and projects for him...but only because he's too smart to waste his time with them, you see ;)

Long and the short of it, she doesn't want Wal-Mart doing her parenting beacuse she doesn't want ANYBODY doing her parenting. She doesn't want her kids being repressed and deprived. And she certainly doesn't want them mad at her

Re:Optionally

[TwistedGreen]

Hmm.

Sobering.

Re:Optionally

[dave420]

It's a seriously good point. Seeing as the parent is the child's "guardian", and therefore responsibile for them - every time they condemn something for leading their kid astray, that parent is admitting, publicly, they're a bad parent.

In the cave-man days, who told the Sabre-Tooth tigers to stop eating the little kids? No-one. Their parents were being real parents and chasing them away with big-ass pointy sticks, not moaning and whining about needing a public committee to oversee a legislative addition to the "Constitution of the Third Cave from the Left". Shoooot. Your kids, your problem.

Re:Optionally

[poot_rootbeer]

Quite frankly, if I were the babysitter I would have summoned the police when the brats started firing at me with pellet guns, if not sooner. Let Mommy explain her negligent parenting behavior to the man with the badge.

Re:Optionally

[Phaegan]

I agree, demos of most games can be downloaded to give you an idea of gameplay/content. Failing that, you can first rent the game and watch or play it yourself to decide whether it is something you want your child to play. Then again, when I was young there was always atleast one friend who had the games that my parents deemed unacceptable, so I could still play them.

Re:Optionally

[Wolfrider]

--Those kids really need some SERIOUS discipline changes, as well as professional counselling - and SOON... Otherwise that idiot mom has a good chance of ending up physically abused -- or even perished -- by her own children's hands someday.

--You gotta teach them respect, or they will absolutely walk all over you - to your detriment (and theirs.)

manhunt's web site

[BitchAss]

My god that's the worst site I've ever seen. I love sites I randomly click and hope it takes me somewhere interesting. I have no clue what that game is about from the site.

It's all in parenting

[Sabalon]

I've been playing video games for a long time (and I still suck at them.) I remember playing Pong on some tv console thing in the mid 70's. I remember early arcade games (very abstract :), and I've played my fair share of FPS's.

Other than some motion sickness caused by FPS's, I don't think they've affected me at all. It's a way of blowing off some stress from time to time. Just because I may get in GTA and start picking off random citizens doesn't mean I'm gonna find an M16 laying around and do the same thing in real life - never mind the fact that my aim is even worse in real life than in a game!

The only violence that I can think of that could be attributed to video games happened in the early 80s. And even then it's more of a parenting thing. We had an arcade in a strip mall. Some teen girl was in there while her parents had gone to the supermarket. She left the arcade with a couple of guys who raped her. The arcade then instituted a policy that if you were under 16, you had to have a parent in there with you. Pretty much killed their business. We used to ride our bikes up there just to play games. After this happened, it was a ghost town in there. And it wasn't the games or the arcades fault.

Re:It's all in parenting

[Sentosus]

I used to compete in laser tag. We actually had tournaments (Mad Props to those in Irmo, South Carolina). It contributed more to my last shooting abilities than any video games. Now, when we talk about knowing specifics to weapons, Counter-Strike has told me to hide behind a wall of 2X6 boards if a 9mm glock is firing at me and to hide behind 3 feet of concrete if a Desert Eagle is firing at me.

If nothing else, the games have taught me the limitations and information a spec sheet could not. Theif flashes a .50 Calibre pistol vs. a Glock 9mm, I am more willing to pass them the money I have. Afterall, with the .50 calibre pistol, you are fighting for you life while a Glock carries some chance of survival.

My parents never taught me about death. I learned my ways of sacrificing animals and fighting from the Old Testament of the Bible.

SP --- Finding evil in all things, just to keep it fair.

Re: It's all in parenting

[Vexware]

The truth is, parents should not have to supervise the games their children play if they have brought up their offspring correctly and ethically. I suppose the other parents, those who have not been able to bring up their children very well, belong to those who can't actually be bothered to check which games their offspring play!

But then, I believe games are not fuel of violence and hatred, but only ways of releasing and exorcising these feelings we have. People do not seem to understand that kids who go on kill rampages are kids that have been badly brought up, or who have had these feelings burned into them throughout their life, and games are just "idea whores" as much as films are, I would say. One could say films are not targeted; they are, but much more discretely than games are. We can observe a number of campains against the effect of video games, but campains against films pass nearly unnoticed -- yet this form of media is just as accessible, a lot of children know how to use eMule easily.

How come video games are targeted so much more than films?

Re: It's all in parenting

[AceCaseOR]

How come video games are targeted so much more than films?

Easy. The "grown-ups" in Congress are going "Well, movies weren't this violent when I was growing up, and we didn't have video games when I was going up, and there weren't school shootings when I was growing up, so it must be the fault of those dag-gum violent movies and those new-fangled video games."

Yes, that's a generalization, but unfortunatly it isn't too off base.

Re: It's all in parenting

[Sabalon]

Probably because a movie is 1.5hrs (if you're lucky), whereas games are something they can be at for days on end. Therefore they must have a lot more influence.

Also, some games do things that movies fear to do because of protests...look at how easy it is to shoot someones head or limbs off in GTA3. Only movie I can remember off the top of my head (no pun intended) graphically decapitating someone is Starship Troopers.

Re:It's all in parenting

[strider_starslayer]

As much as I like this post, and the point your trying to drive home (you learn to be violent elsewhere; you learn to fear weapons in an FPS); I have to make a point about your shocking lack of fear from a 9mm weapon!

Bullets do the most dammage in a human body when they get a chance to bounce around inside you, hence regardless of the number of milimeters on the bore (.50 cal is only 12.7mm) guns are deadly! If someone points a gun at you you give them your money, your watch, you shoes whatever; possessions are not worth dying trying to be a hero over.

Now the guy with the gun starts making comments that make you think your going to die no matter what you do- that's when it's time to take your chances when it's you, or your loved ones on the line and not just some possessions.

Thank god for GTA

[vasqzr]

Before Grand Theft Auto came out, Doom and Mortal Kombat got blamed for everything. There aren't any high school kids around today that have played the originals of either of them.

Been there, done that

[ADRA]

"Who wants to bet that that the use-confiscated-drugs-for-short-term-benefit gameplay of Midway's upcoming NARC will make the cut in future articles about video game controversy?"

Can anyone say:
Fallout 2
Any game with 'stim pack' such devices

Mind you, having the cool jitters can actually add depth and understanding to the drug usage, and hopefully become so sick and tired of the jittering controller or the blured screen that they actually get steared away from drugs. But that's not news so the first time someone gets high and blames NARC, you'll see headlines from here to Baghdad!

Re:Been there, done that

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Deus Ex? In Hong Kong there was a convenience store that you could break into to load up on booze, and right beside there was a night club where you could load up on other kinds of alcohol.

Then I'd go on a drunken killing spree with my dragons tooth sword... I could never seem to keep that thing from hacking down bystanders. It's like stormbringer :)

Re:Been there, done that

[Ayaress]

Fallout 2 went beyond stimpaks. In Fallout 1, all the drugs (while many were addictive) had a purpose in the game (raise strength, charisma, intelligence, purge radiation from the system, heal wounds, etc). Fallout 2 had Jet, which is probably the most realistic drug ever put into a game. It gives you some brief effect for about two minutes (I forget what it is. I think it was like +1 all stats), but when it wears off, all your stats get lowered and you're addicted. The addiction never wears off, and the only way to stop the slow stat loss is to take MORE jet. Over time, it takes more and more of the stuff just to keep your stats from going down the crapper, and usually once you're addicted, the game is more an excercize in trying to get enough jet to keep from hitting the minimums in all your stats until you can get the antidote (if you can even keep your intelligence high enough to handle that quest).

Re:Been there, done that

[keyne9]

Try "Rise of the Triad." Best hallucination effect, ever.

Re:Been there, done that

[BushLad]

yeah you could SO get unaddicted, just talk to Myron if you have high intelligence and science skill, he'd tell you how to formulate a cure, then talk to the head scientist in Vault City and he'd make you two vials of the antidote.

you take one, give the other to the Doctor in Redding, you're good to go.

uhhhhhh.

Phantasmagoria (SP?)

[Sentosus]

The old Sierra game titled here happens to be one of the freakiest games that I have seen. There was no need for violence, but still when I originally went to purchase it back in my youth, I was warned that it would send chills up my spine. It is too bad that we don't see violence used to further a story line and now we have it projected as an element of entertainment. We do not need gibs in BF1942, but the violent noises of death really add.

I must say the gargling noises of people in that game still gives me flashbacks. It adds to the experience, but in a way that gibbing people in UT2004 does not.

I hope that we see this as a passing fad and in the future we place more emphasis in realism vs. violence. Afterall, watch KillBill. The experience is only entertaining for the first few minutes and then slowly gets boring when a simple use a realism could have changed the effect.

SP --- OT as usual.

Re:Phantasmagoria (SP?)

[UncleOzzy]

Oh man, Phantasmagoria was one of the worst adventure games ever. A passable concept at the time(interactive movie more than a game, you could beat it in a couple hours if your CD-ROM drive was fast enough), but Lord, what poor implementation. I think I spent more time changing CDs than actually playing the game. Bo-ring. And not creepy.

Re:Phantasmagoria (SP?)

[Imperator]

Afterall, watch KillBill. The experience is only entertaining for the first few minutes and then slowly gets boring when a simple use a realism could have changed the effect.

My theory about that movie was that the first 10 minutes were so over-the-top violent in order to desensitize you so you could enjoy the rest of the movie.

Games like these don't excite me anymore

[chiyosdad]

I mean, really. Lame stuff like

In the game, you played as a comic facsimile of General George Armstrong Custer, the infamous 19th-century military officer who contributed to a seedier side of American history until he met his (and his entire unit's) death at Little Big Horn in 1876 at the hands of Native Americans. As the game version of Custer, you embarked on little more than a rape romp, as you ran literally across the screen from "enemy" arrows toward a Native American woman strapped to a pole. Once there, Custer would get it on with (or, according to many critics, "rape") the woman for points. Game over.

is for kiddies. Having outgrown all that, what I really need, is a game where I can murder helpless kittens.

Re:Games like these don't excite me anymore

[ocularDeathRay]

Here it is! Really... did you think nobody would have done this yet?

I must REALLY be out of date...

[JessLeah]

When they mentioned "Manhunt", I thought they meant Manhunter: New York...

What folks need to realize..

[stratjakt]

The majority of the video game market is males, aged 18-35.. Google yourself for the demographics, I'm too tired too.

Bitching "what about the children!?" is pointless. There are plenty of age appropriate games out there, Mario, Sonic, Crash Bandicoot are still about.

But, there now exists a generation of adults who grew up on video games. They aren't kids stuff anymore.

The latest big budget kill-fest video game should be measured against the yardstick of the latest big-budget R-rated movie, not the latest disney flick. Compare it to HBO, not Nickelodeon.

A 20 year old gets the jokes and satire in the GTA3 series. An 8 year old doesnt. Games are rated for a reason. Time for some personal and parental responsibility.

That is all.

You Forgot

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Mortal Kombat VI: Finish Him! Her & Yourself!

People, please.

[bad enema]

Take it easy, it is ONLY A GAME. No really, I'm serious. Relax.

The same people who want to ban violent games are the ones who are anti-gun control.

You know, people weren't any less violent before video games were created. This is both historically and theoretically true.

Re:People, please.

[EvanTaylor]

The best part is that violence for teens is at an all time low (from my social science class), as compared to the last 50 years.

Re:People, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too right. In my high school (Back in the 80's) we had a kid who threw stones through the science block windows before setting the place on fire one night. The school would blame all the usual things (anti-social loners, video games etc...). Real truth was other kids were winding him up about a telling off he got from a teacher - they were telling him things like he was going to be expelled, never get to university, spend the rest of his life as a dustman etc...

And why were they doing that. Because they were under stress from the school. Our school would have an assembly for each school year one morning every week. Instead of handing out awards and congratulating students, the principal would serve warnings from various sources, and at the end the session, the guidance tutors would form a line at the front of the hall and call out people who were guilty of various misdemeanors (to much cheering and whistling). Is it any surprise that if you create a prison atmosphere, you get prison behavior.

uh

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

yeah, i think we should put more liability on game makers for messing up our children's lives

while we're at it, let's sue mcdonalds for making us fat, sue microsoft for making us dumb, and other stupid lawsuits

i do like this article though, it has a different prospective, it said night trap's goal was to 'save the teen girls' not kill them. i've seen worse movies, but nobody dares question the effects of hollywood.

No, it's only shock value..

[DelawareBoy]

It's not the violence, it's the shock / originality. Anyone remember Carmageddon? Where the point of the car race is, well, run over as many people as possible? (Including little old ladies with Walkers). Once GTA has a few dozen rip offs, this will be a non-issue. Example, a fairly good graphics game where you deal drugs to high school students would be insanely popular. Right up until it was banned, the company sued, etc. it's when a) companies push limits and b) Those products are recognized by the media. Add those two together and you have a great recipe for controversy. -DB in 2004

Re:No, it's only shock value..

[Politburo]

Did you ever play Carmageddon? The point was to destroy the other racers. Hitting peds just earned you extra cash. If you spent all your time hitting peds, you wouldn't win the race.

Re:No, it's only shock value..

[DelawareBoy]

Actually you could. At least in the first one. If you killed *all* the pedestrians, you would win. Personally, I liked taking out the football team with a single spin.. :)

Re:No, it's only shock value..

[Jaysyn]

In Carmageddon II if you killed *all* of them you'd win the race. I thought Carmageddon was the same, but I've never played it.

Jaysyn

Re:No, it's only shock value..

[clarkc3]

then hit the barrel in the corner in the statium that restocked the board with pedestrians and hit em again :)

I miss that game, it was more humerous than shocking though, I mean you could get artistic expression bonuses and stuff

Re:No, it's only shock value..

[Politburo]

Even if all your opponents had finished? Wow. I tried a few times to kill all the peds but always came a few short.

Re:No, it's only shock value..

[DZign]

About shocking games in which you had to kill people, does anyone remember aa game on the Commodore 64 ? It's subtitle was something like 'the bloodiest game ever made'.?

I don't remember exactly how it went, I believe
soldiers and oil barrels rolled down the screen and you had to shoot them. Finish a level and there was a bonus level in which you had a lineup of men against a wall, and you could shoot them.

Syndicate (the original)

[oniony]

The earliest game I can remember that caused concern was Barbarian. This was a combat game for the Spectrum and others that had lots of blood, decapitation novel for the time. I think the cover of Crash magazine (Oley Frey, I think the artist was called) caused most of it, I reckon!

Syndicate was another memorable game, one of the first to allow mass carnage and easy access to fire.

Re:Syndicate (the original)

[el-spectre]

I loved Syndicate... but MAN was that game harsh... when I got a mission to snipe a guy's wife (he was the mayor, I think) to teach him a lesson about loyalty, it kinda freaked me out.

Re:Syndicate (the original)

[Mr. Piddle]

Syndicate was so disturbing because the main point of the game was to control people through drugs and addictions. People who have no will of their own are very sad, indeed.

Re:Syndicate (the original)

[oniony]

I'm certain it was Oliver Frey or Phray, or such -- he did the covers for Crash! and Zzap! magazines:

Oli Frey

Those were some good covers :)

Public Library provides more graphic violence

[Mark_Uplanguage]

I'm always amazed at the ignorance of easily offended people. It's easier to go into a public library and pick up mystery/thriller books by James Patterson (and many many other authors), which I would state are more violent and graphic by way of explicit details in what was done (murder), how it was done and why. Just go look at some of the published Editorials available on his books. The point is that apparently the first ammendment stopped these offended people from making noise about the authors! I fail to see the difference in video games.

Re:Public Library provides more graphic violence

[rpillala]

James Patterson thrillers aren't marketed to children. There's something.

Besides, people have to be able to read on an 8th grade level and have a good imagination to visualize these acts of violence. If books were written in the first person describing graphic violence I'm sure there would be some kind of furor. Actually for all I know, they are. Graphics and sound make that part of the effort unnecessary.

Ravi

Re:Public Library provides more graphic violence

[lommer]

The difference is that parents who encourage their kids to read at the level of James Patterson books are usually good enough parents to also instill some sense of moral values in the kid. As well, these kinds of parents are generally better educated, and they recognize that they have a responsibility for the behaviour of their children - they can't just blame it on someone/something else.

Now, I've gone and made some very sweeping generalizations which are going to offend a lot of people (and rightly so I might add), but in general I think this trend is evident.

Violence is A-OK!

[bentonsmith]

You can get away with near infinite violence in the media in the US.

You can get away with far less in terms of nudity. I mean look, we had a little breast flash on national television a little while ago, and everyone went agog. From what I have been told, europeans have far less tolerance for violence, and more tolerance for nudity.

Re:Violence is A-OK!

[ragnar]

I had a good conversation over a few pints with a British guy I know and we came up with a succinct explanation of American and British views on media:

Suppose a scene of a movie had a naked woman who is shot with a gun. The American will ask why she had to be shown naked while the Briton will ask why she was shown being shot.

Re:Violence is A-OK!

[scabb]

Bang on. In Britain, I think everything is acceptable (talking terrestrial here) but also has a watershed - eg, you can say "Fuck" after 9:00pm. While it can be found, I don't think the violence or nudity is excessive though. There was a small outcry recently over a woman having her face deposited in a deep fat frier, though.

Of course, if you leave Britain for more liberal European grounds, you can find an excess of nudity.

Not just video games

[Jim_Maryland]

It's not just video games that create controversy. Remember how Dungeons & Dragons was viewed?

Any game that doesn't fit the "norm" will create controversy. A little parental supervision will help in any of these games. Know the capability of your child to determine what types of games they can handle. If they can separate fiction/reality, they can probably handle some of the controversial games. Some kids may take longer than others to differentiate what they see on TV/video games/music/etc... and therefore should be buffered from the content. It's all up to the parents to make these decisions and deal with the consequences.

Re:Not just video games

[rpillala]

If the wrong kind of games have the impact that some say they do, then it's really not up to parents to deal with the consequences. I'm not sure where I fall on the issue of game violence leading to real violence but I do remember a case where some kids were enacting Grand Theft Auto on a public road.

In cases like that it's society that deals with the consequences, not just individual parents. I think the game violence debate is too centered on assigning responsibility to another party and too little on taking responsibility for problems that belong to all of us. Parents should look to themselves, but so should game developers. It's one thing to create a fantasy setting with orcs and whatnot and put fantasy violence there and something else to create a modern setting and put modern violence in it. Games make it harder and harder for kids to make the distinctions you're talking about.

Ravi

Re:Not just video games

[Jim_Maryland]

I have to disagree on your statement that "it's really not up to parents to deal with the consequences". Parents are the primary influence in their children's life. Parents have a responsibility to prepare their children to deal with the "real" world. Part of that involves monitoring the other "influences" in their life. These other "influences" can involve anything: video games; friends; teachers; coaches; TV; etc.... I, as a parent, feel that I am responsible for my children's actions (and I'll feel that, even after they have grown up and left the house).

My opinion on the responsibility of the game vendors is that they should accurately follow the game rating systems for starters. After that, they should also focus their marketing efforts according to age too (don't advertise GTA on Cartoon Network).

As for your comment that "Games make it harder and harder for kids to make the distinctions you're talking about.", if the kid can't differentiate, the parent shouldn't be providing them with access to the game. That's where the parent's need to step up and limit there access to material based on the comprehension level of the child.

Re:Not just video games

[rpillala]

Well, what I'm saying is that sometimes consquences reach further than home. And while I don't deny that parents should limit their childrens' access to certain games, what should the rest of us do in the meantime? Nothing?

Ravi

Re:Not just video games

[Jim_Maryland]

OK, I'll agree that the consequences go beyond the home. As for what the rest of us do in the meantime, well that's harder. If someone is already corrupted by playing violent games, then it becomes a whole new issue. Violent (as well as the other "mature" content type) games are going to be created because they sell. The rating system is designed to limit access to the games, but this still doesn't address the maturity level of the person buying the game and wether or not they can handle the content. I'm sure I can find a 17+ year old that still has problems differentiating reality/fiction, but in general, the recommended age ratings probably work for 99% of the general population. I guess the real issue is the few situations where something extreme happens (i.e. Columbine H.S. and several other incidents). If the majority of the population is quite capable of understanding the reality/fiction of a game, should the population as a whole suffer because we enjoy the fictional side? If I happen to be one of the people that likes to play an alternatitive lifestyle (and I mean in the sense of a criminal on the street), should I not be able to enjoy that fictional role for a period of time while playing the game?

I do believe some of the games are in bad taste, but they obviously wouldn't be made if they didn't appeal to some user out there. My idea of "bad taste" will certainly differ from other and I'll definitely limit the levels that I expose my children to. I think the only non-invasive approach to how other parents filter their childrens content is to provide an easy to understand rating system for the content and encourage parents to basically "be parents" (doing their job in raising children capable of dealing with society).

After playing Fallout II...

[Anonymous Coward]

..I went and purchased a Remington 700 VS Sendero chambered in .223 and scoured high and low for a Red Ryder LE BB GUN. I started digging up graves in my local cemetery looking for chits and stashed loot. I broke into the local Brotherhood headquarters (sneakily disguised as a Teamsters Local Union) and started a gun battle with the tommy-gun wielding folks therein. I won because I had lots of stimpacks and they were too surprised to do much other than scream. Scored a bunch of criticals and blasted Tommy "The Nose" Lasagna's nose off. Then I went to "Jake's Pub" on Pines and Main and bartered for some better weapons. I asked to see his "private stock" but he kept on pretending that he didn't know what I was talking about. When I showed him the Colt I had liberated from some cops earlier, he ran away. I found some liquor, a Glock G36 and some condoms behind the counter.

I'm heading to New Reno now, travelling west along the Dead Zone. I hear that there are mutants in New Orleans. It's my duty to take care of them on my way.

Vault 13, here I come.

Most offensive game is Mario

[superpulpsicle]

Ok, I don't believe to this date no parent has ever complained about super mario brothers games. Gran Theft Auto is not even in the same league.

You got Mario and his brother Luigi jumping on clouds and mushrooms. Mushrooms the size of the screen. What's worse is Toad. A character that consumed so much XXXX, he's a mushroom himself. Come on people.

Postal!

[starcraftsicko]

What about postal?

Lost games: Loverboy

[AndroidCat]

I notice that Loverboy doesn't get any mention. (MAME has it on their Want These ROMs list.) Basically a maze'n'dots coin-op game, with a little perv in a park. After gobbling a pickup, your perv could gobble a ghost, er, woman (without getting arrested). At that point it switched to a fairly graphic screen showing one of several positions. The object was to, umm, get both bar graphs to top at the same time by rhythmic taps on the fire button.

I don't know if anyone ever distributed it, but it toured the trade shows (1984) as a back-at-the-room demo.

Re:Lost games: Loverboy

[AndroidCat]

Confession: At Nova Games we did have a Loverboy board on loan for a few weeks from our Japanese connection. Not that we spent much time during lunch playing it all the time, of course. (Too busy developing awesome games like this narf!) And, no, I didn't make a copy of the ROMs.

Re:Lost games: Loverboy

[gonzocanuck2]

In the Atari 2600 version of Indiana Jones, the part where you fall into the brown and green (or was it pink and green?) foilage with the bothersome tsetse flies...there was a guy who would steal stuff off of you. We called him The Molester because he appeared to be just doing that :-) If memory serves, he wore a trenchcoat as well.

All the games mentioned are hardly violent. Joust incited more fights between my brother and I than the remote control :-) Yeah, sorry about that Airhead, I didn't mean to land on you! :-)

Re:Lost games: Loverboy

[AndroidCat]

Funny, I never mentioned the trenchcoat. :^P

I'm sure someone would have defended Loverboy by saying that the sex was only possible with the pickups (chocolate, diamonds, mink coat, etc), implying that it was consensual and not rape. Uh-huh, whatever.

Re:am i the only one...

[Jonas the Bold]

"Somebody please think of the children" isn't liberal, it's mostly from the Christian right. Thier the ones that ban books, and try to ban movies, music, games, and everything else.

Communism is economic policy and not social, so is completely unrelated.

Labeling everything you disagree with "liberal" (or conservative, or right, or left, or communist, or anything else, for that matter) is stupid.

One that is never mentioned

[JavaLord]

One that I never hear mentioned is Bloodsword for the Apple II computers. It was a 1v1 fighting game, and it came out around 1985. Needless to say, it had the blood of the early mortal kombat games with the ability to chop someones head off in mid combat. Then a goblin would come out and kick around the severed head like a soccer ball. You never heard of it, because it wasn't popular enough to be blamed for something. It's only the popular violent games that get pegged by people looking to place blame rather than assign personal responsibility

Take Doom and Colombine for example. Instead of blaming the teachers for letting those kids be teased everyday, or blaming the kids themselves for venting their frustrations in an unacceptable manner (ie shooting up the place) the media and the parents had to blame doom. Does anyone really think if doom wasn't around those kids wouldn't have shot the place up anyway?

Re:One that is never mentioned

[Tackhead]

> One that I never hear mentioned is Bloodsword for the Apple II computers. It was a 1v1 fighting game, and it came out around 1985.

Sure you're not thinking of Marc Goodman's Bilestoad?

BTW: Bilestoad rocked.

Re:One that is never mentioned

[JavaLord]

Sure enough, I searched around a bit and couldn't find a Barbarian or Bloodsword for the Apple 2. But then I remembered that those *fuckers* that had C64's when I was a kid always had better games. Sure enough I found screenshots of a c64 version called Barbarian. Bloodsword was most likely the name of the Apple 2 port, or the bootleg I bought :(

Check it out, headkicking goblin and all

I did get a good laugh at the old c64 guys, because I remember the Apple 2 version had better graphics. Of course, then I saw that the c64 got a sequal! Not only did they get Barbarian 2, but B2 had overt sexuality and animalities! The picture of that chick was damn wankable back then. Those C64 guys got everything ^_^.

Re:One that is never mentioned

[tepples]

But then I remembered that those *fuckers* that had C64's when I was a kid always had better games.

That's because the Apple II graphics and sound were an utter b**** to code for.

Re:One that is never mentioned

[DZign]

Yes, don't forget the model of the game Vixen.
The game graphics weren't bad, but the game ad's in magazines were... nice :-) I even think the game included a fold-out poster.

OT: McDonalds...

[adamofgreyskull]

According to the news the other day, McDonalds are going to phase out super-size fries and drinks in the UK. :'( :'(

Re:OT: McDonalds...

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

yes, someone said that was in relation to http://www.supersizeme.com/

good flick, kid eats Mickey-D's for breakfest, lunch AND diner, gains 25 lbs and almost dies.

Re:am i the only one...

[snoopsk]

I have been playing violent fps games since my early teen years when Doom first came out. I also own a variety of real guns. According to some, I am a potential mass murderer.

This is another example of the lack of personal responsibility found in the US today. Most people don't realize that responsibility is necessary for liberty. When people do not take responsibilty for themselves, their freedoms will be revoked (games banned, etc).

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[WorkEmail]

I completely agree. People seem to want the government and other organizations to take care of them and take care of their children.

The world is a different place now. Television and media are different. There isn't just 4 channels on TV that everyone in the country watches, there are thousands of possible cable channels, all with different content. And when you pay extra to have cable, can you relaly complain about it's content?

In my opinion, I can understand keeping things relatively tame on regular network television (the channels that anyone can plug a TV into a wall and get for free). But on cable anything should go, and regarding internet censorship, it is ridiculous when there is so many filtering resources available to parents, and their lack of computer knowledge is seen as a threat to their children.

Things like CyberSitter and Net Nanny can restrict your child access to offensive or harmful content, and you can also limit your browser to only go to bookmarked sites. And it does not have ot be an annoyance to you, somply create a Windows profile for your child with a password that you and the child know, and when the child loggs in as themselves, have the browser and internet setting applied as desired. So simple, am I wrong?

What about....

[Reorax]

A lot of games might not have excessive violence or sex, but when something like FFX-2 is designed purely to waste 40 hours of my time, doesn't it deserved to be banned?

wise words

[shadewind]

Games don't make people kill, people make people kill.

"First Person Shooter"

[Animats]

One of the more amusing controversies was over the X-Files "First Person Shooter", which features a VR-type game with a character called "Jade Blue Afterglow". This annoyed Jade-Blue Eclipse, who's a dancer in San Francisco. Jade never collected from Fox, although she tried.

(If you ever get a chance to see Jade in performance, do so. She's a small Asian woman who's very buffed and does performance pieces that show off her strength.)

Some of those games deserved to be banned

[drinkypoo]

Or at least, should have been sold only in adult bookstores. Custer's Revenge? That's fucked up right there. It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't exist, pretty fucked up no matter how you look at it.

A note on Wolf3D: Germany bans anything naziesque, whether you're being nazis, or killing them.

Incidentally I played (most of) phantasmagoria and aside from deciding it was a really cheesy game, I was nauseated by the experience of having my female character raped to further the story line. Given their track record i'm not sure "banned in Australia" really merits inclusion on the list. Although, I can't remember, if that's the game that has the sequence of a woman being killed by being fed her own guts through a funnel, I guess I can understand it. However, that's not mentioned here. The game was made by a woman though, the ever-famous Roberta Williams who is responsible for (in the old days) some fantastic games and (more recently) the stupidest puzzles ever known to man. So given that the main character is female, the author is female, I'd say it's man-hatin' if anything. Which should also hardly put it on the list.

The games that I feel are most justifiably contraversial are Grand Theft Auto 3/VC and Postal/Postal 2 (each game's second installment is basically the same game with different enhancements.) I feel this way because of all the different more or less realistic ways you can kill people in them. Postal (2, at least) is obviously goofy, like you can blow people's heads off while they're vomiting and vomit will come out of their neck. (Time for a MAD-style "Yeeeecch.") The thing that makes them different from, say, Unreal Tournament is that they are such a plausible setting, using (mostly) realistic weapons that the average person can get their hands on. (Obviously Postal has many departures from this, and GTA has a couple.) At least in games like Half-Life you're in a totally mythical situation.

Now, I like these games, I don't think they should be banned - but I can see why people get into such a froth about them. The bottom line though is that parents are responsible for parenting, not game companies. You don't let your kids eat rat poison and wash it down with antifreeze, even though rat poison looks like candy and antifreeze looks kinda like mountain dew. Why is this any different, besides the fact that we don't know if playing violent video games is actually harmful?

Re:Some of those games deserved to be banned

[snoopsk]

Some of those games deserved to be banned

They don't deserved to be banned in the US! Ever hear of the First Amendment?

If you won't protect the freedom of speech of someone with whom you disagree, then you don't believe in free speech.

Re:Some of those games deserved to be banned

[drinkypoo]

Actually, I agree with you wholeheartedly. My subject line was knee-jerk, so apparently I am as guilty (at first reflex) as any of the people whose actions I decry in my latest livejournal entry which was initiated by this story, and which I will mirror here for your enjoyment. What I mean rather than banned (and what I should have SAID, I will grant you) is they should have been banned from mass retail outlets, because they should not be supplied to children. (If they are pornographic in nature, existing laws prohibit their sales to minors.)

Babble above, content below:

GameSpot has posted an article entitled When Two Tribes Go to War: A History of Video Game Controversy which on page 11 has the following delicious tidbit:

As the battle ensued, in January 2004 the Miami Herald reported that the city of Miami would enact an ordinance that would make it illegal for retailers to sell or rent "violent" video games to anyone under 18 without a note from his or her parent. Three of the city councilmen who voted for the ordinance were Haitian-Americans. The two who voted against the ordinance were not of Haitian decent. Retailers and rental outlets would incur warnings or fines of $250 per day or up to $500 for repeated offenses. GameSpot reported that Mayor Joe Celestin, a Haitian-American who introduced the ordinance and who is also one of Vice City's most vocal critics, said, "We don't believe the First Amendment was written to protect those who want to incite violence."

The interesting thing is that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America does not discriminate. There are cases where violence is justified, such as preventing taxation without representation. Well, Senor Celestin, please move to Haiti where more than 80% of the people are living in poverty, where two-thirds of the population is involved in agriculture, which is to say, weedin' and pickin'. Stop pissing on this great nation of ours, which is based on the notion that a person has the right to speak their mind without fear of recrimination. Not to mention that to this date there is still no proven link between violent video games, and violent behavior, you ignorant fuck. I wish I'd heard about this in a more timely manner, but suffice to say, the head of Miami's local government does not believe in the First Amendment. Free thinkers beware.

Damn, the more I read this, the worse it gets. I find new people to be offended by all the time.

the second film, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, met a greater challenge when in August 2003 ABC Radio News Australia and other sources reported that mainland China had banned the movie entirely, calling it "anti-Chinese."

China's government complained that the film falsely portrayed China as "a country with no government and overrun by secret societies," according to ABC News. The BBC reported that same month that a Chinese official said, "After watching the movie, I feel that the westerners have made their presentation of China with malicious intention. ... The movie does not understand Chinese culture. It does not understand China's security situation. In China there cannot be secret societies."

HAHaHAHAHAHaHaAHA! In China, *snort* there cannot *snicker* be secret societies? Need I say more?

On February 15, 2004, Eidos attempted its first move into the spotlight from the other side of the stage by announcing that it would release a game called Whiplash, developed by Crystal Dynamics and aimed at kids 7 years of age and older. The game's objective would be to free laboratory animals from torture in the name of science,, the U.K. Telegraph reported. As noble as the game's premise may be to some, British police and MPs are not happy about it and have called the ga

Re:Some of those games deserved to be banned

[BumBiscuit]

Incidentally I played (most of) phantasmagoria and aside from deciding it was a really cheesy game, I was nauseated by the experience of having my female character raped to further the story line.

Phantasmagoria was certainly cheesy, but as I remember it the so-called rape scene barely qualified as controversial, let alone nauseating. The main character, Adrienne, is fully clothed in a nightie the whole time, the "rapist" is her husband (albeit, a husband possessed by the vengeful spirit of a dark magician, but hey, who isn't?), and technically, the scene never even shows Adrienne raped. Her husband only grinds against her from behind for a bit. Pretty tame stuff, really, especially considering what dark beings get up to in Japan (tentacles, anyone?)

Given their track record i'm not sure "banned in Australia" really merits inclusion on the list.

Phantasmagoria was also banned in the United States, to an extent: CompUSA, which I believe at the time was the largest retailer of computer software, refused to carry it. A gutsy move, considering the amount of hype surrounding the game -- it was one of the first really big FMV games, in the heady days when FMV seemed like the future of gaming, and people hadn't yet realized how crappy the games actually were.

Leisure Suit Larry

[PalmerEldritch42]

What? No mention of the Leisure Suit Larry franchise? These games were all about a dorky guy trying to get laid. You had to solve quests for condoms and get enough money to get an expensive hotel room for your liasons. That's about it. There was nothing socially redeeming about it- but it was fun.

Re:am i the only one...

[snoopsk]

The religous conservatives want the games banned because they feel the games are morally wrong.

OTOH, liberals want the games banned because they beleive that games cause violence. It is a liberal mentality that suggests that society, not the individual, should accept responsibilty for an individual's actions. These same people believe that guns cause violence.

The extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are the ones trying to ban the games.

More violent, or more capable of being violent?

[Killswitch1968]

I don't think video games are getting increasingly violent as a symptom of our increasingly violent culture, I think we're just more capable of making violent games.
If Space Invaders could have had 3D graphics, explosions, and shrapnel, I think they would have put it in. The technology simply wasn't available to them. More realistic violent video games are just a result of more realistic graphic engines.

Why, sure, I play Zork, proud to say it...

[dpbsmith]

A VIDEO GAME ARCADE?

My friends, either you are closing your eyes
To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the calibre of disaster indicated by the presence of an arcade parlor in your community.

Now I play PC games myself, mighty proud to say it;
I consider the hours I spent with Zork are golden--
Helps ya cultivate logic, and horse sense, and a keen mind.
But just as I say it takes judgement, brains, and
Maturity to solve a puzzle,
I say that any boob can punch a button on an arcade console
And I call that sloth
The first big step on the road to dee-gradation.

And all night long your River City youth'll be fritterin' away their hard-earned quarters
Stick the coin in the slot, don't worry about taking out the garbage--

And, my friends, ya got TROUBLE!
Yeah, ya got TROUBLE!
With a capital T and that rhymes with V and that stands for GAMES...

Re:Why, sure, I play Zork, proud to say it...

[Dirtside]

Ha! I watched that movie two days ago. Unfortunately it's about forty minutes too long :)

Re:Why, sure, I play Zork, proud to say it...

[dpbsmith]

It's a reference to a famous and very funny song/monologue/thingy in the musical "The Music Man," in which a con artist drums up support for his scam by raising the spectre of the terrible problems that a pool hall will bring to River City (Mason City, Iowa, circa 1910). "And the next thing ya know ya got TROUBLE my friends, right here in River City" is something of a byword. The point being that there is always a popular, vaguely disreputable youth pastime being regarded with concern, and that there are always those eager to exploit that concern.

Re:am i the only one...

[Ayaress]

If you want to talk about commie liberals, I should remind you that it's mostly Republicans (and Blue Dog Democrats, who might as well be Republicans anyway) that focus on family values and "think of the children" and such. The liberal path in this (although most Democrats are far from liberal themselves) is that video games constitute art, and are protected by freedom of expression/speech/etc, and that if you want to stop people from buying them, why not tax them and raise the price rather than bogging them down with useless and unconstitutional chains.

Look for the middle-ground....

[Half-pint HAL]

Young minds do not need violent video games to give them ideas.

Strictly, no. But games/films/comics/music/novels/plays/operas/philo sophy/politics will give them particular ideas. (Culture is no barrier to corruption.)

For example, there is an interesting phenomenon in the UK arising from a series of adverts for a Chocolate bar: Cadbury's flake. These adverts involved beautiful women eating the bar rather provocatively. For a man who went through puberty while these adverts were being shown, you can often get a rough estimate of his age by matching his sexual fantasy to a particular Flake advert. Is it the bath advert? The waterfall one? Etc.

A pubescent boy will have fantasies regardless of what he sees on TV, but what he sees on TV will doubtless affect what those fantasies are. I imagine there's a whole new generation of fantasies based on Lara Croft doing handstands....

What they need is decent supporting social contexts to show them the alternatives.

They need that too.

Be careful of stating "They don't need X, they need Y" as quite often X and Y are complementary and should both be supplied.

Don't present running down pedestrians as entertainment to 13 year olds while also saying why safe road use is A Good Thing (TM).

HAL

Re:Look for the middle-ground....

[Wandering Idiot]

Don't present running down pedestrians as entertainment to 13 year olds while also saying why safe road use is A Good Thing (TM).
Unless said 13-year old is literally retarded, they are doubtless capable of understanding the difference between a fantasy game and real life. I can remember being 13. Don't insult me.

Re:am i the only one...

[Ayaress]

The liberal stance (although in the US, it gets distored into more emotional terms that can fire up the voters better) is that guns are the MEANS of violence, and not the CAUSE of violence. Removing the guns means that people can't shoot each other wether they want to or not.

In the words of Sheila Broflovski

[jskiff]

"Horrific depravity and horrible violence is OK, as long as people don't say naughty words..."

ahhh, Death Race

[Mantorp]

inspired by the blockbuster movie Death Race 2000.
Sylvester Stallone's finest performance till Spy Kids 3D finally put him on the map of superstardom.

Its not funny.

[Gannoc]

Last week, my 7 year old nephew stole a 1982 crown vic, ran over at least 5 people, threw a grenade at some cops, and after getting shot, healed himself by having sex with a prostitute.

Bad parenting? Perhaps, but I discovered later that my nephew had finished playing the copy of Grand Theft Auto III he had received for this birthday. Yes, it could be a coincidence, but this about this: How else could a 7 year old child have learned that banging a prostitute can heal wounds except through that video game?

Are we going to continue to allow these games to poison the minds of our children? I pray that we shall not.

Re:Its not funny.

[Mr. Piddle]

It wasn't the prostitute. Your 7-year-old nephews STDs simply went into remission.

To quote Bender.

[Kenja]

To quote Bender.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[WorkEmail]

"I would paraphrase you that the rate of change of societal decay is constant." Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. The last 30 don't mean as much as we think. True, daily life in the United States has decayed, but I do not believe it is because of the media influence on us. "Far from a serious pursuit of questions like Why am I here?" I think we all know that that question is essentially unanswerable, so instead f trying to waste time thinking about it, we just watch Friends and E.R. and eat Big Macs. lol. "How can we take fundamental lies like homosexuality and masquerade them as truth?" I don't understand that one.....

Re:am i the only one...

[snoopsk]

I think the original poster was referring to liberal philosphy, not a specific political party.

What causes violence?
(A): violent video games, guns, society
(B): human nature, hate, greed

(A) represents liberal philosophy - blame is applied to everyone and everything except the individual.
(B) represents libertarian philosphy - empasizes personal responsibilty by placing all the blame on the individual.

Columbine vs. Doom

[Half-pint HAL]

Instead of blaming the teachers for letting those kids be teased everyday, or blaming the kids themselves for venting their frustrations in an unacceptable manner (ie shooting up the place) the media and the parents had to blame doom.

They could have also blamed a national gun machismo, or more crucially the idiotic parents who stored lethal weapons where messed up, confused teenagers could get their hands on them. So they had to break locks, so what? All that shows is that the cases/locks weren't strong enough.

I do feel that violence in the media has a part to play, but having several projectile weapons in the house is certain to generate more familiarity and comfort with the devices than a pixelated BFG waving around a screen....

HAL.

Drugwars!?

[jbischof]

Anyone else spend hours playing "DrugWars" on their Ti-82 calculator, while ignoring the valuable education they were supposed to be getting at high school?

Re:Drugwars!?

[TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R]

you mean to say that people did things other that that?

Disturbing quote

[Jeremy Erwin]

Further on into the gamespy article, there's this gem.

China's government complained that the film falsely portrayed China as "a country with no government and overrun by secret societies," according to ABC News. The BBC reported that same month that a Chinese official said, "After watching the movie, I feel that the westerners have made their presentation of China with malicious intention. ... The movie does not understand Chinese culture. It does not understand China's security situation. In China there cannot be secret societies."

I think I understand China's "security situation" quite well, thank you. China is paranoid. I just don't care.

They didn't even mention THRiLL KILL!?

[ShallowThroat]

wow, i'm disapointed. When EA acquried Virgin interactive, they stopped what would have been THRILL KILL, what could have been a great gory game. you can still play it if you acquire a cd from those oh so suspicious p2p networks, and get the appropriate mod chips. ahhh belladonna....

Re:They didn't even mention THRiLL KILL!?

[AceCaseOR]

RTFA. It get's mentioned, it's just not in the top 10.

Easy way to teach kids about violence...

[Ayaress]

Take them hunting. Peg Bambi in the throat, have the kid help gutting/cleaning it, take him to the butcher's and let him watch as they run the deer through the bandsaw, then give him a nice big slab of venisen. It didn't scare me off of video games (I've probably accumulated the digital blood of billions on my hands since), but it sure scared me off of guns. Either that, or it'll make them a vegitarian.

Define "use" here

[Aero]

From the previews I've seen of the game, when you seize a stash, you can either play good-cop and turn the stuff in, or play bad-cop and sell it right back to the dealer on the next corner over for a quick buck. Play Bad Cop too often and your performance rating goes down, which will eventually keep you from progressing through the game. Short-term benefit, long-term repercussions.

What will be the issue, the drug trade itself, or the potential of portraying the police negatively?

The question I have is ...

[maddogdelta]

Given the assumption that video games makes one violent, what games did Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Attilla the Hun and Jack the Ripper play when they were younger>

After WWI there was a great fear that the return of all the trained and experienced killers from european battlefields would create a violent crime spree of endemic proportions. Never happened. If real violence couldn't create that kind of effect, how come video violence is supposed to be a surefire violence trigger?

Re:The question I have is ...

[Pvt_Waldo]

Real violence, as witnessed by those in war, is far more numbing and has far more impact than video game violence. It shoccks the core. It lingers in the mind.

Video game violence just trivializes it. Nobody has nightmares about what they saw in a game. But they do have fantasies.

Re:The question I have is ...

[joster]

If real violence couldn't create that kind of effect, how come video violence is supposed to be a surefire violence trigger?

I think the difference is in the reality of killing in a war vs. the reality of killing in a computer game. As realistic as the graphics and sound of computer games get, can they really simulate the experience of knowing that you have killed a fellow human being? I think that both in video games and movies, violence is often stylized such that killing people simply looks cool. Consider the lobby scene in The Matrix. Neo and Trinity have lots of guns. There are lots of bad guys with guns. Then in a very slick scene, they "kill" all the bad guys. Now just take a moment to think about killing someone you know. You are alive; He/she is alive. And say, with a knife, you stab them until they are dead. Just writing this is repulsive to me, but I think it expresses my point. To a mature individual, just a moment of thought and imagination is sufficient to know that the idea of killing another person is abhorrent. Now, for someone who is not mature enough to realize this and disconnect the idea of killing people with the fun of running around and shooting bad guys, they can become confused and think that actually holding a gun and shooting people is no different than shooting bad guys in the video game. I think that is how video violence can go wrong.

Re:The question I have is ...

[hesiod]

I think that no video games or anything should be banned, but at risk of looking like a hypocrite I would point out:

> Consider the lobby scene in The Matrix. Neo and Trinity have lots of guns. There are lots of bad guys with guns. Then in a very slick scene, they "kill" all the bad guys

The people Neo & Trinity kill are, in fact, NOT the bad guys. Inside the Matrix, the only bad guys are the Agents. None of the people killed were inhabited by agents, they were simply doing their job -- they just happened to be assigned to protecting that building. They were killed anyway. If Neo & Trinity were so worried about the people, they could have gotten through another way.
If she can learn how to fly a helicopter in 10 seconds, she damn well better be able to learn how to use the back door! Or use tranquilizers -- they were gonna blow the place to the ground anyway, why the huge gunfight (I know, it's for slow-action shots)?

Re:The question I have is ...

[sholden]

Given the assumption that video games makes one violent, what games did Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Attilla the Hun and Jack the Ripper play when they were younger>

Given the assumption that flying planes into towers kills people, what planes were flown into which towers in Cambodia.

A implies B does not mean B implies A.

Violence, Roman games, and the military.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

This proves that more violence doesn't necessarily make a game better.

Well, that doesn't address the issue of what the game is FOR, now does it?

If the purpose is to make money, "better" means "make more money". Violence is a tool to attract male teenagers with pocket change in the "young warrior" stage of maturation. So the profit maximization function may include putting as much violence in as possible without getting banned from the arcade.

If the purpose is to propagandize the player, then it depends on what you want to propagandize him WITH. Violence remains a tool to attract players. But now it must be tied to a propaganda message. Which can be done by the effects of use of violence in gameplay and the situations where using it improves, rather than harms, the score.

But then the issue becomes "what message do you want to propagate"? Political Correctness? The current legal system's rules? How to be a better warrior?

The Roman Games were viewed, by the rulers at the time, as a way to (in modern terms) desensitize the Roman population to violent death, in order to make them better soldiers.

Which brings us back to the fundamentals of US law.

The choice of "message" in any form of communication or art is a free speech issue. As such it's very heavily protected by the First Amendment. This is because government selection of moral codes is, in the view of the country's founders, more dangerous to the population than letting them select for themselves.

Violence in video games may not be "nice" according to some moral codes. But limiting communication to a particular set of moral codes is NOT within the government's power.

Re:Violence, Roman games, and the military.

[hambonewilkins]

My argument is outside of the government. The market has decided the fate of games that are violent or feautre sex just for the sake of sex or violence. People hear they are bad games and stay away. In the case of BMX:XXX... far, far away.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't making a free speech argument.

Re:Violence, Roman games, and the military.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't making a free speech argument.

You weren't. You were making a market argument (with the implication for the free speech argument that there is no problem, because market forces are already penalizing gratuitous sex and violence.)

But there was an ambiguity in your title ("More violence doesn't mean better"), to wit: What is the definition of "better"? This is especially problematic, given that the usual result of hand-wringing about videogame violence content is a call for censorship, followed by a debate about WHAT and how MUCH to censor, with "none at all" being portrayed as an "extreme" position.

So I was addressing the ambiguity, segueing into a point in the free speech argument by way of ilustration.

Re:Violence, Roman games, and the military.

[Nicolas Pillot]

> Violence is a tool to attract male teenagers with pocket change in the "young warrior" stage of maturation

Virtual violence can keep away from stress and real violence.

I may be adding my Troll 0.02$, but i sometime enjoy playing dumb-ass-violent-idiotic games, becase it often gives me a great stress relief.

After 5 minutes of carmageddon, i get some good laughing. Playing alien vs predator (which does not refer to real-life violence, but i love speedy good game) while listening to black metal can drain my whole stress away in a quarter hour. Just as instagib q3.
And after that, i have evacuated all the anger i could have, and i'm again the smiling cute boy my girlfriend is so fond of. Either that or having sex, the result is the same, but video games do not make her eyes shine.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[dave420]

Well, it's still going on. The US armed forces have "Apache" and "Commanche" helicopters, and use "Tomahawk" cruise missiles. As Noam Chomsky put it, it would be like Nazi Germany having tanks named "Jew" and "Gypsy". Oh, but it's the US, so it must be OK... it has a pretty flag on it... so pretty...

Re:am i the only one...

[Jeffool]

And I think that maybe you're thinking that the libertarian way of thinking is in juxtapose to traditional liberal philosophy?

Don't let TV tell you what a 'liberal' is. And for Christ's sake, don't let a Democrat(hell, or Republican) do it either.

The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been around for quite some time and have meanings other than those espoused by the major political parties.

But hell, if we're making a game of it all, I suggest:
What causes violence?
(C): violence, control, hate, greed, weapons

(C)represents anarchistic philosophy - "blame" implies something is wrong. So long as everyone consents by taking part in the system that perpetuates violence, f'ck it. Let'em kill each other.

What ever happened to...

[Shirov]

Personal Responsibility! These kinds of stories should be moot. Bottom line, no one forces kids to play these games. Typically a kid gets the game from their parents or money provided by their parents. If this is not the case, the parents still have the right/obligation to NOT allow their kids to play the "violent" games. Parents, stop asking the government to raise your children and do it your damn selves!

--Ryan

Re:What ever happened to...

[sbrown123]

[i]
Typically a kid gets the game from their parents or money provided by their parents.
[/i]

I always got the money for violent games by either selling myself or drugs.

Re:What ever happened to...

[Shirov]

Was that supposed to be in italics? Too much time on ZDNet eh?

--Ryan

Re:am i the only one...

[Jeffool]

Brains can also lead to violence. Hence the removal of most people's.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[log0n]

The difference (people need to understand perspective and intent) is that Apache, Commanche, Tomahawk, et al aren't names that have the negative mental stigma that Jew (one can argue this) and Gypsy have.

Avoid slippery-slope mentality.

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[maxpublic]

People seem to want the government and other organizations to take care of them and take care of their children.

More importantly, they want the government to deal with their neighbors as well, in much the same fashion as the original Puritan colonies did. That is, "do things according to my moral code or I'll get the government to beat your ass."

The Constitution is of little concern to many Americans. They're far more invested in oppressing the people around them to confirm that they have the power to control their environment. Rights interfere with those activities, and because the Constitution is about rights it's an impediment to their goal to exercise power. The fact that such a view will come back to bite them in the ass is of little concern as they're sure that *they* will never become the target - since, of course *they* are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.

Max

Re:am i the only one...

[snoopsk]

I guess I was referring to the interpretation of the word "liberal" as it is used today. I'll admit that I don't know much about "traditional liberal philosophy".

In a way, anarchism and libertarianism are similar. Both desire self-government over centralized government. However, anarchism is generally considered more extreme.

Barbarian (was:Re:Syndicate (the original))

[CandyMan]

IIRC, the reason for the outrage against barbarian was twofold: one, the graphic decapitations (as graphic as you can get on a C64). But second, and not least, the raunchy Frazetta-esque cover featuring page three girl Maria Whitaker.

Ah, those were the times...

Re:Barbarian (was:Re:Syndicate (the original))

[STrinity]

But second, and not least, the raunchy Frazetta-esque cover featuring page three girl Maria Whitaker.

The cover was tame compared to the game itself, which featured the female warrior nude.

Re:am i the only one...

[maxpublic]

The battle cry of the extremist right is "for the chilllllddreen!"

The battle cry of the extremist left is "for the greater good!"

Both sides are fanatical loons and both want the exact same thing: to control what YOU can and cannot do. Their supposed differences are nothing more than trivial details.

Max

Sly's Record (OT)

[Embedded Geek]

Just wanted to point out that Mr. Stallone has done quite well for himself in the Razzies (the annual "award" for the worst performances in motion pictures). With his Worst Supporting Actor award for Spy Kids 3-D, he now has a career total of 30 nominations and 10 "wins."

FYI: I recall hearing on the news that this was a record, but since I could not find it on the Razzie site, I will not make that assertion.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[Snowmit]

Yes. That would be mentioned onpage 3 of the article.

The situation is worse all over the world

[Rolman]

For every idiot spewing BS about violence in videogames, there are three game-savvy people who can shout "ESRB!". This industry self-regulation system actually works quite well when people, media and retailers get involved with it. It's very efficient when the circumstances are the right ones.

The problem is, it's not as widely enforced as the movie rating system, and it's worse in some countries I've been in, where the ESRB rating is completely ignored and the video games can be sold to minors. Countries in Central and South America come to mind, and some countries in Asia. The US has been improving in this area, as some retailers actually ask for ID when selling mature games, but the situation is still far from perfect.

Let's remember the one with the money is usually not the child, and most of the cases where the offending game gets to a child's hands is the parent who bought it. Whenever there's a case like this the parent simply blames the company or the videogame industry altogether, and of course there's always a "Paladin of Justice" of sorts, ready to take the issue to the media or to some control circles.

In Mexico, for example, I saw a case of some people on national TV saying Pokemon is the devil's work and a priest encouraging children to burn their Pokemon toys (the priest, by the way, used to own a video rental store, ironic, huh?). This stupid issue stopped the very second some news arose about none other than the Pope himself endorsing Pokemon and praising it for getting children together to play. Pokemon is a children's E-Rated game, completely safe to play and yet there are people ready to use it for their own agendas. Now think about the real trouble makers like the M-Rated Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto or the upcoming Doom 3.

Every once in a while I get to see stupid, ill-informed articles about the issue on media in many countries. I think it's time the videogame industry defends itself by making the same amount of noise as those sensationalist idiots do. We have a good rating system, we need people to effectively use it, we need to strongly enforce it.

Death Race

[Embedded Geek]

I remember playing this at our local movie theatre, circa 1977. It was fun, but the mirth was crimped when I discovered my sister was much better at it (sibling rivalry knows no bounds). I recall that my Dad thought it was hillarious, even while asking out loud if he should be letting us play the thing.

A trip down memory lane...

Crap

[cHALiTO]

Nice article, except for one little detail:

How can one talk about controversial games and not mention Leisure Suit Larry!?!?!

Sure we have the Right, but is it a Good Idea?

[sampson7]

Not one post so far has discussed the fundamental issue here -- the only thing kids tune out more than their parents are content-advisory labels. Sure, in a perfect world every parent would monitor their 2.3 children 24 hours a day and sit around the dinner table every night and talk about their feelings.

And I'm hardly one to advocate government censorship as an answer to anything. Hell, I loved Mortal Kombat when it first came out, and to this day FPS are some of my favorite ways to blow off steam.

But too many /.s are ignoring our collective responsibility to society and behind the cloak of the 1st Amendment and/or parental and/or personal responsibility. Sure, it's legal to depict violent actions. Sure, Hollywood does it all the time. But let's ask the next question -- okay, it's legal -- but is it good? Is it beneficial to society?

Too many parents work too many hours. Too many children sneak behind the backs of their parents. Too many video game stores sell to minors. ESRB ratings are a joke. (And I certainly remember turning 21 and buying alcohol for my under-aged friends.)

The result? Too many children see far too much violence, both on TV and on video games. This is bad. And I don't care that some looney-tunes wacko goes on a shooting spree after playing some Doom variant -- that's not the "bad" I'd talking about. Instead, I'm worried about the daily toll all this takes -- the desensitization to violence and misery and all the bad things in life that only add to the pressure of being a teen/young adult.

Rather than proudly trumpet the fact that the Constitution allows for these things, I'd challenge the Slashdot community to come up with answers. We're not going to stop children from growing up, and with a war on terrorism and brutality all over the news they can hardly avoid encountering mind-numbing violence on a daily basis. And I certainly wasn't (particularly) harmed by violence on a little screen. But today is different -- look at the way we drive on the streets at rush hour -- there's too much aggression in every facet of our lives. Freedom is a Good Things. But it also comes with responsibility. Sure we have the Right to blow up a bunch of pixels on a screen, but we also have a corresponding Duty not to introduce even more excessive violence into an already scary world.

Wow!

[Tei]

Thats my favorite C64 game, before MULE. Humm... maybe was banned for other stuff,,.. maybe show some nazi symbols that german laws forbit??

Water Closet

[thehossman]

I can't believe the game "Water Closet" didn't make the list.

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[Mysticalfruit]

You are absolutely on the mark.

To quote the great Dave Barry:

"Fortunately, I live in the United States of America, where we are gradually coming to
understand that nothing we do is ever our fault, especially if it is really stupid."

In almost every aspect of life, I run into this. People who are unable to take responsibility for their action or inaction. Everything is always everybody else's fault.

They didn't lose their job because they neve showed up to work on time and then left early and took a two hour lunch. They "quit" because the boss was a hardass.

Here are some of the other funny ones that I heard lately.

Some girl is suing the Army because she didn't realize that by signing up, she might have to goto war...

A guy is suing his two (ex)buddies and a junk yard... The three mensa members decided (after some liquid courage) to go into a junk yard and put a bowling ball on top of a junk yard and take pot shots at it with a handgun. Needless to say, our buddy ended up short an eye over the whole thing... Now why it's the junk yards fault... see statement above...

It's just amazing and tragic all at the same time.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Same with Forgotten Hope mod...

[antdude]

v0.61 doesn't include any graphics related to Nazi symbols and other stuff. There is an upcoming patch with these graphics will be released soon on its Web site. The main reason for censorship is Germany.

Really?

[sczimme]

The Constitution is of little concern to many Americans. They're far more invested in oppressing the people around them to confirm that they have the power to control their environment.

Wow, I didn't know that. Here I thought I was trying to do the best I can by my family and working hard to better myself, but it turns out I've been trampling the Constitution with my power-mad ways. Thanks for the heads-up.

/rolls eyes

Re:Really?

[Dirtside]

Wow, I didn't know that. Here I thought I was trying to do the best I can by my family and working hard to better myself, but it turns out I've been trampling the Constitution with my power-mad ways. Thanks for the heads-up.

Dude, what is your problem? He didn't say "The Constitution is of little concern to all Americans" or "of little concern to sczimme." He said "many Americans." Get a grip.

Re:Really?

[maxpublic]

I guess reading comprehension is something you flunked in school. Try looking up the word 'many' and see if that equates with the words 'all' or 'every'

Moron.

Max

Re:Really?

[Paladin144]

Wow, I didn't know that. Here I thought I was trying to do the best I can by my family and working hard to better myself, but it turns out I've been trampling the Constitution with my power-mad ways. Thanks for the heads-up.

So trampling the Constitution is helping your family somehow? I'm confused, why did you feel accused by his (IMO) accurate insight that many Americans are not concerned with such abstract concepts as "rights." Many people, I'm sad to say, are not exactly staunch defenders of our 1st ammendment rights.

Are you implying that you are helping your family while bettering yourself by somehow trampling our rights? If that's the case, then screw you. If this is just a misunderstanding, then perhaps you should read posts more carefully and take them less personally.

That's insane!

[cnelzie]

How could they give those effects to those drugs?

Pot can make you paranoid. Pot often gives people bizarre ideas that make perfect sense to them, but are seen as out of touch with reality to anyone not stoned. Pot makes people forgetful, even lazy to the point that they sit around ALL day long and do pretty much nothing. (Granted there are a few rare individuals that aren't affected as thus and NO, you aren't one of those people...)

LSD completely screws with reality. People can lay comatose on the ground. Reality can melt away into nothingness permanently destroying someone's mind. It doesn't let anyone see 'good and evil' in people. It warps the mind into smelling color, hearing the scent of flowers and other oddities by causing the brain to radically misfire. While rare, these effects can last permanently; destroying any chance of a future beyond sitting in a mental institution or under adult foster care for the rest of someone's life. The danger of this drug is way to high to be protrayed as some short-term effect in a videogame.

Why does any videogame need to address this subject as this game apparently is going to?

long excerpts

[morcheeba]

Just curious (this being slashdot)... where did that teacher get the "long excerpts" of the movie?

Re: Custer's Revenge

[fenix down]

I'd like to hear that argument. I mean, it's not like there's a shortage of names for Jews that have real negative mental stigmas. I am Jewish, therefore I am a Jew. What else are we supposed to use, The People Formerly Known as Hebrews?

And Apache has to have more of a negative mental stigma than Jew in any case. The people we named Apaches originally called themselves Nida. Apache is "enemy" in the language of a nearby tribe. (Who themselves had the misfortune to have been renamed to a funny-sounding nonsense-word by the Spanish.) It's like we discovered France by way of England and started putting "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys" on all our maps instead of France, and then to add insult to injury, started naming our ejector seats after them even after we realized our mistake.

By the way, here's the Erickson "Gypsy Lady" on firefighting duty.

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[StocDred]

the complimentary shapes of the penis and vagina

You're assuming biology is the only factor is determing right or wrong. Are midgets allowed to hump non-midgets? Are eunuchs allowed to marry?

something fundamentally wrong and unnatural

Your opinion. Some cultures think eating dogs is wrong and unnatural. Or kissing. Or allowing women to show their faces in public.

need to marry Joan of Arc, and a few of these Martian rocks look sexy.

And now you've leapt to the absurd. Although I do applaud your over-inflated vocabulary in your attempt to make your bigotry sound just and reasonable.

a gift from the creator

There is no creator. Sorry about that.

Not just Public Libraries

[irokitt]

I refuse to watch CNN or the local news in front of my younger siblings (lowest_age = 2). Just watching the news introduces violence into the home. How many of the parents who wouldn't let their kids buy GTA let them watch the 6:00 news or spend a few hours at the public library? And how many of those kids got a few hours of frag time at a friend's house, where the restrictions were more lax?
These arguments aside, I think there is no exceuse for parents to shake their fingers at the "evil video games". The only scapegoat is yourself.

Re:Context, not equivocation.

[hesiod]

> Remind me again, what happens if you play it and don't kill anyone, hurt anyone or steal anything? Last I knew, you lose the game...

I've never lost a game like that... What happens? you get really bored with walking around looking at stuff. You don't gain any points, but unless you are an a mission you don't lose anything.

> In Passion, we see an example of noble sacrifice.

Really? I see a man who decided to sacrifice himself. It is not noble, it is just his choice. The only reason it is "noble" is because you see it as such. The only reason someone is offended by GTA is because they choose to be. I choose not to be offended by something completely made up, I choose not to consider Jesus noble for allowing himself to be killed.

(The real post is over, just a note on Christ: If he's so noble and can do miracles, would it not have been more noble for him to stick around longer & help heal/teach his followers? I don't believe this argument, but it is something to ponder.)

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[Nicolas Pillot]

> there are thousands of possible cable channels, all with different content

Hey. Nobody says anything about evening news and news channel ? Whole families watch them during dinner (including kids & infants, who if they do not really understand, do remember what they see)

The news speak 80% about death, war & violence. This means real violence. No one turns off the tv set, no one angers, because "hey, we've got to be aware of what happens !".

After that, the very same people are complaining about violence in video games. But they forget one thing : video games are not free, contrary to evening news.

The game must be bought, and to buy it you *should* have the age required on the box, which in some way ensures you are smart enough to understand this is fiction, that this is not the way things happen, that you are not to do the same things, that the game may be stupid...

If a 11 year old plays such games (too many to name them all), it is the parents responsability. If they allow it, then they can't complain. And if they then complain, aren't they ... stupid too ?

But the REAL reason for the reply to your post

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... there was an ambiguity in your title ("More violence doesn't mean better"), to wit: What is the definition of "better"? [...] I was addressing the ambiguity, segueing into a point in the free speech argument by way of ilustration.

But the REAL reason for my post was to show a situation where more, and more gratuitous, violence might be defined as "better": Propagating warrior virtues and mindsets.

And it might be strongly argued that propagating warrior "virtues" IS a valid purpose for games. Consider the Roman gladiatorial contests again.

The Roman games lasted until 404 AD, at which time a switch to a different government-mandated moral code resulted in their cancelation. This coincided with the decline and fall of the empire, which was followed by about a thousand years of technological stagnation (though little, if any, less carnage), until events (notably plagues) brought THAT mandated moral code into enough doubt and revision to lead to first the false, then the true, renaissance.

Granted the Romans mostly used their army to conquer, loot, and kill-or-enslave essentially all of the accessable world. Not my preferred foreign policy. But given that at the time the likely result of a weaker army was to be conquered, looted, and killed-or-enslaved yourself, "warrior virtues" had a bit to recommend them.

Foreign policies have finally changed, thanks mainly to the potential of nuclear annihilation. But competent warriors are still necessary even if the US Isn't bent on world conquest. The US military has already noticed that video game players tended to be better pilots and gunners, and has commissioned games with more realistic equipment behavior parameters.

So it could be argued that, here and now just as in roman times, training the population to be better warriors might be a vaild purpose for games. If that's the case, "better" for such games might appropriately include more, rather than less, graphic violence.

Re:But the REAL reason for the reply to your post

[Planesdragon]

This coincided with the decline and fall of the empire, which was followed by about a thousand years of technological stagnation (though little, if any, less carnage), until events (notably plagues) brought THAT mandated moral code into enough doubt and revision to lead to first the false, then the true, renaissance.

"wrong."

The so-called dark ages had their fair share of innovations and change. Off the top of my head, armor & weapons, agriculture, and "alchemy" (chemistry's precursor) all had major advances during this thousand-year stretch of "no advancement" (Not to mention significant developments in government, theology, and language, but you said technology.)

As to your point: Yes, you could argue that games encourage warrior behavior. OTOH, that's just a subset of the sociological purpose of games: to develop skills that are necessary for life. (Which is why PE teachers and Coaches go on about teamwork, preserverence, et al.)

Re:But the REAL reason for the reply to your post

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... the decline and fall of the empire ... was followed by about a thousand years of technological stagnation

"wrong."

The so-called dark ages had their fair share of innovations and change.

I believe you misunderstood my use of the word "stagnation". I don't claim technology stopped dead for a thousand years - any more than an economist claims that in a period of "stagnation" all the factories, power stations, and farms shut down and we all starve and freeze in the dark.

But I do claim that it was a LOT slower than it could have been - and than it has been since immediately after the grip of "the church" was loosened.

There was a lot of improvement during that time: Crossbows, better armor, the horse collar, improved wind & water powered mills, etc.

But for crying out loud, look how little we have to show for a THOUSAND YEARS of effort!

And much of what little progress was made wasn't the result of innovation in the Christian parts of Europe, but was imported (largely from the Muslums, who were having their scientific / technological golden age during part of that period.)

Re:But the REAL reason for the reply to your post

[Planesdragon]

But for crying out loud, look how little we have to show for a THOUSAND YEARS of effort!

Look how much we innovated between 1500 and 500 BC. Or 2500 and 1500. The middle ages weren't the height of Rome, but they weren't all that bad, compared to any other non-roman millenia.

Heck, look at how little Japan changed in the thousand years before Admiral Perry broke open the gates.

You have two instances of amazing learning and advancement, and you're extrapolating from that a sense that the "Dark ages" were somehow non-performing compared to the human standard. That's just faulty statistics.

As for the real point of your argument, that somehow religion had a detracting effect on advancement: the chaos of the medieval ages was caused by a degredation of the order that Rome imposed, which led to linquistic shifts and cultural atrophy.

The Roman Catholic Church, with its standard language and rather bookish ways, probably should get more credit than anyone else for making the European Renaissance possible. If there hadn't been the order and peace imposed by the Church, no prince would have had the free time that it took to start the Renaissance.

(One could even argue that the Church's belief in miracles and the emminent end-times gave Europeans a mindset that the world could be changed, thus encouraging invention in a way that no other culutre save Rome ever did.)

Re: Parental Failure

[Scorchio]

Good Lord! She's even given them internet access!

A Modest Proposal

[quintessencesluglord]

Sources report that an early copy of GTA Vice City was found in Haiti by US troops, confirming what many US Haitian groups have asserted: that Rockstar Games is undoubtedly responsible for the outbreak of violence there. Initially, the Haitian Centers Council decried the media depictions of the civil war, stating "it makes all Haitians seem barbarous thugs", but the recent discovery of the early copy of the Rockstar game has energized the Haitian community to "seek out and destroy all older editions of GTA VC before the madness spreads". It is rumored Canada was planning a frontal assault on the beleaguered island nation by nature of Candia's mere proxy to the USA.

Meanwhile, US Haitian groups have threatened to sue the US Army for their video game "America's Army" if a single Haitian casualty is caused by US troops. Meanwhile, the mass slaughter of their former countrymen in Haiti continues.

In a related story, relatives of members of the Jonestown massacre have filed a lawsuit against God. The lawsuit alleges that the results of Christianity were to blame for the mass suicide. Christian groups in the US have been quoted as saying: "This is an outrage! This (holds up Bible) is the word of God, not some video game...".

Senator Joseph Lieberman has expressed "concerns" over Christianity's role in the mass suicide, and has suggested a ratings system similar to movie ratings for each book of the Bible, with fines and possible prison sentences if anyone makes the restricted sections available to minors. Some Christian groups have called for armed prayer vigils to quote "save the soul of this country and the Senator".

God could not be reached for comment.

Re:Context, not equivocation.

[rblum]

"GTA teaches but one lesson: if you don't get caught, you can profit from being a low-life street thug. Lovely lesson, that. "

Ah, but that's where you are wrong. Only seldom do works of fiction directly intend to teach - they reflect society at the time of their creation. (Granted, the better ones make you think about it, but I think GTA has induced its share of thinking about violence...)

And GTA does just that - it reflects a society where dirty scumbags can get away by just hiring a pricey lawyer. OK, so the lawyer part is left out, and the scumbags are thugs, not business people. It's still the same message - our society is messed up. Can't say I disagree. Unlike the Bible, it just doesn't show a different way that leads out of the problem.

So, what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't like the underlying message of GTA. That's fine - dislike it all you want. The developers still have a right to say it. That's what it's all about - the freedom to say what you think, without fear of retaliation.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Talk to other parents and convince 'em not to buy it. Just don't try to legislate what an appropriate message is.

"In Passion, we see an example of noble sacrifice."

Well, yes and no. It wasn't exactly Jesus decision - the decision was made by God. There's a reason Jesus says "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?", and it's not because he's happy he made the right choice.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[Tofino]

Funniest post I've read in ages. Replying as way of apology for not having any mod points. :)

Not a bad question (about Ebert)

[filmsmith]

Why don't you ask him.

fs

Me, too!

[filmsmith]

youth crime has hit rick bottom.


I'd like to hit Rick Bottom too. That bastard flunked me!

fs

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea who Rick Bottom is nor do I condone violence against him. I simply saw an opportunity for humor and found (miraculously enough) a man named Rick Bottom who teaches computer courses.

Loverboy

[No Such Agency]

God, that sounds like crap.

PainStation

[LuSiDe]

Wha, i heard rumors PainStation is a violent game. How about Power Pong instead (Pong on a bicycle).

"...campy 70s music..."

[Orinthe]

Hey, my cousin was backup vocals and bass in some of that "campy 70s music", you insensitive clod!

Actually it was a hit song in 1968, "Nobody But Me", by the Human Beinz. w00t!

bad music in 70s?

[Jacek Poplawski]

The American 1970s are associated with crime, violence, poverty, unemployment, political and social upheaval, bad clothes, and worse music.

IMHO 1970s was best era for music in whole human history. What author was talking about?

Re: Custer's Revenge

[dave420]

Errr... Jew and Gypsy are names for peoples, just like Apache and Commanche are. The only difference is that no-one's pointed it out to anyone who seems to care. Not to mention the fact the indian genocide is something apparently revered in the US, not mourned.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[dave420]

Here we go again with the slashdot "don't crap on the US" mentality. Every logical point contrary to the perceived American moral/cultural/technological superiority is immediately swiped aside because "America can't be wrong". It seems you can't mention the US in a bad light these days without someone attacking you (either verbally, or physically). Sad, and pathetic.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[Ranten_N_Raven]

And THAT attack comes from the guy who unloaded on ME after I said I didn't like Martha's politics BUT that I thought she got a raw deal.

See The Exchange HERE

I don't see where anyone slammed you in this thread. Sometimes, our points of view cloud our "logic." Sometimes we're just being a TROLL. Yes, I have been guilty of both, too...we ALL do it at times!

Seriously, man--lighten up with those who are not your foes!

You're a Child Abuser

[Vagary]

I believe that's child abuse and it's a shame the censors were cowed by the subject matter into neglecting an NC-17 rating to stop people like you. Ultimately it is the duty of the state to compensate for parents with exceptionally poor judgement so that the rest of us don't have to live with their screwed-up children.

Of course I also think it's child abuse to expose your children to any religious dogma whatsoever, so you should probably just ignore me as someone who has an extremely different viewpoint from your own.

Choose Life, Choose Violence

[Vagary]

Better to choose violence than have no choice at all. Who does our society hold more pity for: the monsters who choose violence over peace or the victims who are innocent targets of violence? Worst are those, like victims of repeated abuse, who don't attempt to change the circumstances allowing violence to continue around them.

Anyone who doesn't walk out (never mind going in in the first place) of The Passion of The Christ is as weak as a battered wife or child witnessing domestic abuse.

Night Trap

[arothmanmusic]

May I state for the record that I played and won Night Trap, and it was the most godawful boring game I've ever played.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[dave420]

You can't mention anything criticising the US on slashdot without some jumped-up US moderator waving his flag and modding you down. I fully appreciate logic being clouded by emotion, but this happens all the freakin' time. It's not "sometimes" but "every minute of every day" - that's my problem :-P My point was valid and pertinent, yet passed over because it didn't sit well with the general perception of America. I'm all for fairness, which this isn't ;)

America is full of racism and injustice. Yet, everyone thinks America is perfect, as that's what they're told day-in, day-out.

Re: Custer's Revenge

[Ranten_N_Raven]

1. You assume that it is US moderators that mod you down because they don't like your criticism of the US. Possible, but not proven. I believe that some of my pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms comments get modded down because of moderator prejudice. Oh, well; it happens. That's what meta-moderation is supposed to work against. I hope you moderate and meta-moderate, both often and fairly. We ALL should (Yes, it just kills me to mod-up stuff I disagree with, but I do it because if it's a truly informative or insightful comment that move the discussion, then I should.)

2. Like Slashdot, the US isn't perfect. I think even the most ardent supporters of the US Constitution (my hand raises & waves frantically) do noot seriously make such a claim. I've certainly not seen it made.

Now, the claim that the US is *better* than other countries, yeah, that we'll fess up to proposing that!

3. Yes, America if full of racism & injustice. As a Christian, I believe that is because of the sinful nature of man. You may believe in other reasons. But -- what country isn't?! All are guilty of it!

I believe the US Constitution gives free people the "best in the world" shot at legal equality and real justice. Of course, we will never achieve perfect justice and equality, but for each of us in the US, the protections afforded us in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments make justice and equality a possibility. In far too many parts of the world there is NO chance for justice or equality--the poor and weak are the prey of the rich and powerful. Sure, it doesn't always work here, either, but there is a chance. Sometimes, the weak overcome the powerful in the courts or in the market.

Re:Context, not equivocation.

[hesiod]

We should be able to find out who moderated the posts. The one who modded me flamebait is obviously a christian who refuses to look at any ideas other than the ones he already has. There was nothing flamebaitish or even slightly offensive in this. Mod it Offtopic, if nothing else, you fucking boogyman-fearing loser. Except that it IS on-topic, isn't flamebait, isn't a troll... could be overrated, I guess.