Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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).
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
Grand Theft Auto:Sheep Fscker
Quake IV:Disembowelment Edition
and my favorite....
Catholic Priest Online
I love video games....
[ Don't reply to this ]
I think XEvil deserves a mention.
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.
Only effect the ban had was that every youth absolutely had to copy the game.
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?
... nobody complains about movies although they had controversial elements like violence and sex much earlier than video games ever existed.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
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.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
The standard answer when youths "go bad" is to search for the evil influences that twist their minds. /. 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.
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
But... hey, it's easier to blame the victims than address the real causes of social problems.
My blog
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
.. like the first couple of the dizzy series, and time and magik.. great games...
I remember when games didn't need all this crap added to them to make them good to play
Think I will go dig my emulator out and have another go... you can see a field, exits are [north] [east] and [south]
If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
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.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
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.
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.
"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!
Bye!
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.
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.
When they mentioned "Manhunt", I thought they meant Manhunter: New York...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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.
Runnin' On Empty
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
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.
Powered by onion juice.
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.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
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.
-- benton.
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.
..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.
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.
I don't know if anyone ever distributed it, but it toured the trade shows (1984) as a back-at-the-room demo.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
"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.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
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?
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).
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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.
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
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
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.
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.
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?
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
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
RTFA. It get's mentioned, it's just not in the top 10.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
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.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
Nice article, except for one little detail:
How can one talk about controversial games and not mention Leisure Suit Larry!?!?!
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
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.
/.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?
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
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.
I can't believe the game "Water Closet" didn't make the list.
-- The Hoss Man
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.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
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.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
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.
... 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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Good Lord! She's even given them internet access!