How Violent Media And Game Censorship Interact

Socrates writes "GamerDad has an article up called 'The Media War', a feature discussing videogames in the context of violent media and the well-meaning groups who try to censor it. 'The war against violent media is not new. Learn the history of media controversy, and take a sobering look at what's in store for gamers down the road.' The piece includes quotes from Douglas Lowenstein of the ESA and IGDA spokesman Jason Della Rocca."

Comments

I suggest we..

[wraith0x29a]

..just frag the censors.

Huh?

[numbski]

Exactly WHY does the IDSA have squat to do with this?

IDSA == Interactive Digital Software Association

It's essentially a watchdog group paid by various software publishers to be a piracy watchdog group, amongst a few other things.

Therefore, why on earth would they be censoring ANYTHING, if they draw a paycheck from those who would rather not be censored to begin with?

IDSA is a huge racket to begin with.

Re:Huh?

[nb caffeine]

It is my understanding that the ISDA it out there to fight censorship, among other things. They have been touted as a fighter for the video game industry and the myths behind violent videogames that have become "facts" to people in congress. In the article there was a thing about chains like wal*mart having influence, since they are huge, and if a violent videogame doesnt get carried in wal*mart, then it wont sell. It seems that the issue is more of a self censorship thing, kind of like the movie industry (cutting back a movie from nc-17 to R), but then again, i could be wrong, i just skimmed the article.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly WHY does the IDSA have squat to do with this?

And what the hell European Space Agency have to with this!11

Re:Huh?

[PainKilleR-CE]

The IDSA/ESA founded the ESRB, which controls the rating of games.

Ratings, when actively enforced (or when retailers decide not to carry something with a given rating) can influence content through self-censorship, simply because developers will try to get a lower rating to gain more sales.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view of the matter), many of the best-selling games in recent years have been M-rated games, so it's unlikely that we'll see much self-censorship (or publisher-enforced censorship) as a result of the ratings any time soon.

Of course, the article actually discussed some of the effects of ratings by examples of the movie, music, and comic book industries...

Re:Huh?

[corian]

can influence content through self-censorship, simply because developers will try to get a lower rating to gain more sales.

or will push for a higher rating, for those who, say, think that seeing a "G-Rated" movie isn't cool.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. Has anyone even seen very many G rated movies in a long time. Hell, even Disney's animated films are now all PG. Although i also think this has to do with the MPAA lowering the criteria for G rated films. In the past G rated movies had allowed some swearing and violence in them but not now. Not even the word "Hell" is allowed in G rated films anymore. Even mentioning killing puts the film in the PG catagory.

They are wrong

[Morph233]

I've been playing video games since I was 10 years old. Everything from Super Mario 1, to Doom 3, now being 24 and still playing I have no desire to go around and destroy things or kill people.

Mind you that it would be nice to steal a bus and go for a joy ride(GTA3), but common senses tells me that if I did, off to jail i would go...

unless i could go really fast and get away :)

Re:They are wrong

[Oddly_Drac]

"now being 24 and still playing I have no desire to go around and destroy things or kill people."

I'm eight years ahead of you, and the only thing I do is listen to repetitive music in the dark and munch vitamin pills and fruit.

Yes, I butchered the joke much in the same way I let Lemming after Lemming eat flaming death.

Re:They are wrong

[Apreche]

Yes, this is also the argument I use. Very logical.

A) Smoking Tobacco CAUSES lung disease. Everyone who inhales smoke recieves an amount of damage to their lungs.

B) Violent video games do NOT cause violence. Not everyone who plays violent video games hurts others.

In fact, the number of people who do hurt others is an extremely large minority of those who play violent games and watch violent media.

This is just another case of post hoc ergo procter hoc. I think I speak for everyone here when we say that bad parents, schools and the attitude of our society are to blame.

There, I said it so nobody else has to.

Re:They are wrong

[Nutria]

Yes, this is also the argument I use. Very logical.

A) Smoking Tobacco CAUSES lung disease. Everyone who inhales smoke recieves an amount of damage to their lungs.

Ummm, disease != damage. Not everyone who smokes gets lung/throat/mouth cancer, and not everyone who gets lung/throat/mouth smoked (or "dipped", in the case of mouth cancer).

Go back and study a bit more Logic...

Re:They are wrong

[VendingMenace]

Actually, i hate to be overly argumentative, but your analogy here is not correct.

A) First off, smoking tobacco does not actually cause cancer. The damage to your DNA can cause mutations. These mutations can cause cancer.

You are correct in saying that everyone that smokes revieces an amount of damage to their lungs.

In the same vein, people opposed to violent video games would say that everyone that playes them is exposed to violent video games and is exposed to enactive violence (even if just in video games).

B)You are saying that not everyone that plays violent video games hurts others. I will ignore the fact that "hurt" is a rather loose term and assume that you mean not everyone re-inacts what they see in games.

Now of course this is true, but it is also true that not everyone that smokes gets cancer.

Now, the REAL reason why your reasoning is not good, is becuase it actually proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to have it prove!

That is to say (rewording the arguemnt so that it is factually true.

A) Some percentage of those who smoke get cancer and this cancer can be strongly linked to their smoking (since it is impossible to say exactly what caused a particulare cancer).

Right? Now the reason why we think smoking is bad and should be regulated is because it has adverse affects to society and individuals.

Moving on to point B....

B) Not everyone who plays violent videos games hurts others (aka. some percentage of people that play violent video games will commit violence).

I think we can all agree on that. Now we see that we regulate smoking and claim that it is bad because we correlate smoking with cancer. If ther is any correlation with video games and violence, then it behoves us to regulate it to, by the same argument.

You seem to be willing to admit that violent vidoe games can induce more violent behavior? (by your wording) though i could be misreading what you wrote.

If so, then we see that video games must be regulated.

If however, you think that there is no correlation, then perhaps video games do not need to be regulated. This was not the point of your post though. I am merely trying to show how your arugment is not acutally logical. It merely (when read correctly) re-enforces the idea that we should regulate video games should there be any correlation found between the playing of violent video games and violent behavior.

I am not trying to be mean or anything, i just think that your reasoning is a bit off. that is all.

Re:They are wrong

[plague3106]

No, your reasoning i believe is wrong.

When someone smokes, it may cause damage to someone elses lungs which they do not want. In some situations, you can't avoid it (for example, in the winter when smokers are huddled around a door to enter a building). I don't want the damage to my lungs, but someone elses behavior is causing it, and i cannot prevent it. So we regulate where people may smoke.

But for video games, i choose to expose myself to the violence, but my actions do not expose someone else who wishes not to be exposed to it. Thats the key difference i think.

Re:They are wrong

[VendingMenace]

but the concern is that exposure to violence may make someone more likely to commit violent crimes. Correct? At least that is the argument as i understand it.

I think we can safely assume that most people do not wish to be exposed to violent crimes (at least on the reciving end). That is to say that most people do not wish to be shot, mugged, raped, ect.

So, if violent video games can be shown to be associated with elevated violent crimes, this means that there are people out there that are exposed to violent crimes that do not wish to be (the victims) and we need to regulate it.

Again, perhaps i am just misunderstanding the gist of the entire debate, but i always thought that people wished to regulate violent video games becuase they thought they would increase the occurance of violent crimes.

Re:They are wrong

[VendingMenace]

But of course, a sample size of 1 does not make an arugment. Even counting the two replies and myself that brings us to 4 people that can vouch that violent videogames do not make them more violent. However, even 4 is not a good sample size.

The point being is this, to borrow a poster's argument (kinda). There are people that smoke and do not ever get cancer. It is not because of these people that we regulate smoking. It is becuase there is some percentage of the poeple out there that smoke and seem to have a higher incedence of cancer.

If we see that the use of violent video games increases the incedence of violent crimes then it behooves us to regulate violent games. Just as we regulate smoking, alcohol, drugs, guns, ect...

The point being this...you can sit around all day and talk about how violent media does not affect YOU personally and it doesn't matter at all. What people are concerned about is how it affects the population at large. You must have a sample size that is significant before what you have to say can be considered significant itself. :)

Re:They are wrong

[PainKilleR-CE]

No, your reasoning i believe is wrong.

Actually, from a strictly logical standpoint, he's correct. The original poster simply chose examples poorly.

When someone smokes, it may cause damage to someone elses lungs which they do not want. In some situations, you can't avoid it (for example, in the winter when smokers are huddled around a door to enter a building). I don't want the damage to my lungs, but someone elses behavior is causing it, and i cannot prevent it. So we regulate where people may smoke.

Actually, this doesn't address much of what he was discussing, and the problem is not addressed any better by most of the more recent laws passed in states like California than the laws that they superceded. For example, California previously required smoking areas to be isolated from non-smoking areas, and workers had a right to refuse to work in smoking areas. Non-smoking areas also had to include the entrance-ways. One law passed which actually addresses your concerns better is that which forbids smoking within a certain number of feet (I believe it was 100, but may have been 100 yards) of an entrance to a public building. On the other hand, the law which banned smoking in all public buildings which do not gain most of their income from tobacco, does not address this problem any better than the previous law. One of the primary groups that backed the law banning smoking from bars (which was permitted in addition to places making most of their income from tobacco under the original law) argued that not only did most bars not even have non-smoking sections, but that waiters/waitresses refusing to work in smoking sections often made less money, either because there were fewer shifts available or because non-smokers tipped less. While this all may have been true, no one was forcing waitresses to work in bars, and restaurants by this time already could not allow patrons to smoke indoors.

Fortunately for the state of California and its restaurant and bar owners, the weather is rarely adverse to sitting out-doors, and nothing prevented restaurants from having outdoor smoking areas. Unfortunately for bar owners, the laws that would permit them to serve drinks outdoors can be fairly complicated, and involve more regulation than even bars are used to dealing with. Those bars and restaurants that could afford to do so, quickly allowed their patrons to smoke outdoors, in some ways exposing more people to the smoke than simply their own patrons...

I don't know how businesses in New York have been handling this, as the winters can definitely be a bigger problem there. On the other hand, both New York and California make more money off a pack of cigarettes than any of the people that actually make those cigarettes, and only a very small minority has even thought to complain about taxation of a minority of the population (often being used for other groups, I might add).

But for video games, i choose to expose myself to the violence, but my actions do not expose someone else who wishes not to be exposed to it. Thats the key difference i think.

Yet if video games cause violence, certainly that violent action will eventually be turned towards others, thereby exposing others.

Personally, having left California for other reasons, I find myself living in a state that has very little regulation on where a person can smoke. I've actually found it quite rare that someone has complained about this situation. The exception, of course, is the waitresses, who complain when they have to work the non-smoking sections (which have only recently been required by law, and are simply tables marked non-smoking rather than a section closed off from the smoking section), usually because the tables stay empty most of the time (obviously this wouldn't be the case in California if that state still had the same situation, but California's law was very similar in the early-to-mid 80s).

On the other hand, the state strictly regulates where you can purchase alcohol (act

Re:They are wrong

[AuMatar]

After extensive study, I have come to a horrifying conclusion. 100% of people who commit violent crimes breathe! In addition, 100% of people who no longer breathe no longer commit violent crimes. Surely, this proves me must ban breathing. For the children.

Re:They are wrong

[VendingMenace]

either you are being funny (which i know you are) or you have a poor grasp of how statistics are intended to be used (which you might -- i don't know about this one). But of course the problem lies in the fact that 100% of able to commit violent crimes *must* be breathing. So breathing is a nessesary condition for violent crimes.

This means that there is no CONTROL group to compare to. That is, there is no non-breathing group that is capable of commiting violent crimes.

HOwever, in the case of video games, there are poeple that play games and people that do not. So a valid study could be conducted.

Of course, your point may be that statistics can be used to prove any point you want. And that is true. I am saying nothing about the ethics of how statistics should be used once they are gathered. I am merely stating that one person offering that HE plays violent games and is not violent as proof that violent games do not breed violence is not valid. THis one statement has no impact whatsoever on the truth of whether violent games can cuase people to be more violent.

That was my point :D

Re:They are wrong

[AuMatar]

Yes, I was being funny. Its still right though- if you don't breathe, you die. The dead can't commit violent crimes. So killing everyone would stop violent crime (after the killing is over, of course).

But you're still quite a bit off. To prove causality, you don't need a control group. You need an intervention. You need to take a random group of people and force them to play 40 hrs of violent video games a week, and see if that increased their tendancy to violence.

Merely comparing to a control group is statistical noise. It could mean A caused B, it could mean B caused A (far more likely IMHO, that violent people like violent games), it could mean A and B have a common cause, or it could be pure luck. An intervention setting the rate of violent media at a set level would be able to tell if it really does cause violence. Anything else proves nothing. A good resource on this is found at CMU's open learning initiaative

Re:They are wrong

[Colazar]

Well, you could also go the route of postulating a mechanism by which violent media would cause violent behavior. Do retrospective studies to see if that seems to hold true. If it does, then you could measure how that factor correlates with consumption of different kinds of media.

For example, the most common triggering event for violent situations is--a threat to ones "face," or perceived lack of respect. So, you could try and find out whether people who play lots of violent video games are more (or less) likely to perceive their status threatened than, say, people who watch violent movies, or who don't consume any violent media at all.

(I hadn't ever considered the question before, but now I'm actually interested in the answer. I could be convinced that people who play the types of games with a lot of online banter would have thicker skins and be less likely to be easily offended in person. I could also be convinced that they might be more likely to offend other people and trigger confrontations. Or that most people can separate online and offline enough that there's no difference.)

Course you can say that that still doesn't *prove* anything, but at that level, nothing can really be *proven*. We just get successively better predictive models.

Time for me to recommend a book "The Dark Side of Man" by Michael Ghiglieri (sp?). It's a study of why people (well, okay, males) engage in violent behaviour in the first place, from the point of view of a primatologist. (Second time mentioning it on Slashdot this week--but it's a very interesting book.)

Re:They are wrong

[AuMatar]

Actually, you can prove cause- via an intervention. Read the link I gave you. Basicly if you set a value for a variable (amount of violent media played), and then you run the experiment, you break all causal links where B, a co-cause C, or outside factor D could cause A. So you tell only if A causes B. You still want to run on a large sample size both physicly and temporally times to prove that it wasn't coincidence, but it is provble.

Furthermore, your suggestion has a major hole. It doesn't discriminate between A causing B, or B causing A. Do people become violent because they play violent games, or do violent people prefer violent games? Either one is possible with your scenario of "getting in their face". Only experiments that set variables are any good for proving links.

Re:They are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I never mentioned cancer, for a reason.

Re:They are wrong

[plague3106]

but the concern is that exposure to violence may make someone more likely to commit violent crimes. Correct?

yes, thats the concern, however there's no basis in reality for it. Simply look how many people play violent video games (millions i believe) vs. the number of people that commit violent crimes (a MUCH smaller number). None of the groups claiming the game CAUSE the violence ever address that fact.

Even if a VERY small minority MAY be influenced by the games, that doesn't mean we need to do anything at all. Indeed, any such person is probably already greatly disturbed. The kids wern't shot in columinbine b/c Doom made some kids violent, they got shot b/c they were bullying someone else to the point that person snapped.

Re:They are wrong

[plague3106]

I don't agree with banning smoking completely. They have a right to, but I don't feel i should be subjected to something i don't want.

As far as no one forcing waitresses to work in bars, this is true. However its probably also true they can make alot more money in a bar then at the local denny's. I don't see why someone trying to make money with a set of skills should be forced into a situation that causes them damage simply b/c they wish to maximize their earnings. All workplaces should be relatively healthy to work in.

The rest of your post seems to deal with the fact that we restrict movies to those under 18, so why not restrict games? Well those age restrictions don't worry. Lots of kids smoke pot, drink and watch violent movies. I saw many R rated movies before i was 17, so did all of my friends, yet none of us have become violent crimials. I don't think we're the exception either. As i stated in another post, people influeced that much by a game or movie already have other problems, and its not the fault of the game makers, just like McDs didn't make you fat, you (not personally..) did by eating there too much and not excersing.

Another point people never seem to get; you don't suddenly wake up on your 18th bday much more responsible. Its different for everyone, so much so that i question having such hard and fast rules. I know alot of people in their 30s that are much less responsible then alot of 16 yr olds.

Re:They are wrong

[PainKilleR-CE]

As far as no one forcing waitresses to work in bars, this is true. However its probably also true they can make alot more money in a bar then at the local denny's. I don't see why someone trying to make money with a set of skills should be forced into a situation that causes them damage simply b/c they wish to maximize their earnings. All workplaces should be relatively healthy to work in.

That's why it makes sense to have seperated smoking and non-smoking areas, for the sake of people's health. At the same time, if people don't want to work in smoking areas, they have to deal with whatever differences exist there. Like everything else, risk factors can affect your pay. I know I could've gotten a fairly good bonus if I had taken a job in Iraq (despite the fact that it would probably be safer than working in many cities in the US), but I chose not to do so, and someone else got that money, instead. It's certainly not the case that in every situation waitresses make more money in smoking sections than non-, but it happens often enough in many areas that it's worthwhile for some. California didn't even give people the choice in most bars, though they did for quite some time in restaurants. Once the smoking ban was put in place, though, many bar owners either took the fines (as both bar owners and the smokers get fined) or shut their doors after receiving a number of fines. Many people, after all, are perfectly happy to drink at home if they can't have a smoke in the bar (which is probably better overall for everyone but the drinker).

The rest of your post seems to deal with the fact that we restrict movies to those under 18, so why not restrict games? Well those age restrictions don't worry. Lots of kids smoke pot, drink and watch violent movies. I saw many R rated movies before i was 17, so did all of my friends, yet none of us have become violent crimials. I don't think we're the exception either. As i stated in another post, people influeced that much by a game or movie already have other problems, and its not the fault of the game makers, just like McDs didn't make you fat, you (not personally..) did by eating there too much and not excersing.

The point is simply to force parents to become involved. Perhaps that's not the best way to handle things, but I believe it's a middle ground that most people can deal with. I certainly played what would be M rated games before I was 17, but my parents were well aware of what I was playing (and I certainly wasn't buying most of them myself, anyway).

Another point people never seem to get; you don't suddenly wake up on your 18th bday much more responsible. Its different for everyone, so much so that i question having such hard and fast rules. I know alot of people in their 30s that are much less responsible then alot of 16 yr olds.

I agree, but in the end there's no way to handle that in government without the government itself getting overly involved in people's lives. What I really detest is the truly hard-and-fast rules, such as those related to the ages at which people can consume alcohol and tobacco, or even view pornography, as well as voting. On the other hand, the latter two especially can be very controversial topics because people are too afraid to let their children see a naked body and maybe are afraid of what we'll end up with if stupid people couldn't vote.

Well

[FictionPimp]

If they take away my violent video games, I'll have no recourse but to kill people for amusment. I'll most likley start by buying a compound that I will make to look like a city and offering bums free food and shelter to act like they live in my town while I jack their cars and shoot them in the face.

Later, I would move on to more interesting games, like hunting down a human and stabing him in the back while he guards some ancient artifact. Or perhaps shoot people with a sniper rifle while trying to stop a terrorist plot.

It all comes down to this. I have to deal with idiot assholes all day. If I can't shoot virtual people when I get home, I'm going to have to shoot real ones.

On a serious note, what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system? If children can be infuenced by 1 media type, couldn't they be infulenced by all? Does this mean that parents can also influence their children? If that is true, shouldn't all children be removed from their parents and awarded to a state approved center where they will only be allowed to view approved material and hear approved words?

Hmmm, perhaps we should sterilze the majority of the population and only keep dedicated breeders, and raise our children in factories. Yea...I mean after all, it takes a village.

Re:Well

[Oddly_Drac]

"If I can't shoot virtual people when I get home, I'm going to have to shoot real ones."

Thank Christ for gun ownership. If you didn't have the gun, you'd have to go and talk at them or something.

"what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system?"

Substitute 'a gun' for 'movies' or 'public education system' and you might have a clue. American culture is about diverting attention away from a raging fetishism for a power symbol while quietly burying people and defending a method of projecting a steel-jacketed lead slug into someone's body. All the talk about 'defence' is a fairly obtuse way of removing the responsibility for extending a situation where a five day waiting time is considered bad for owning a device that only has one purpose. Two if you count opening bottles at a distance.

And yes, I'm expecting the 'flamebait' mod, but to be really honest I'm getting bored with the debate around it, or the whinging that you have to have a gun to protect your home. Personally I go for strong locks.

Sorry you got caught with that one. Interesting day so far.

Re:Well

[Dark Nexus]

So you're saying it should be something like this:

"What makes them think video games are more harmful than say a gun or even a gun?"

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. He wasn't glorifying gun violence. He was saying that video games lead to violence - gun violence or simply throwing a punch - no more than other forms of media, on average. Your rant on gun violence was sadly misplaced here.

Did the parent poster say anything about defense? Or protectin one's home? No. He just used guns as an example, being the most obvious form of violence and killing.

Re:Well

[(trb001)]

On a serious note, what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system?

Frankly, the nightly local news scares the bejeezus out of me, that's why I've stopped watching it and instead hit up CNN or Fox News. I suppose living near Washington, D.C. lends itself to having especially violent, depressing news coverage, but I think it's gotten worse in later times.

What I could never understand about Lieberman, et al, bashing GTA was that, in the game, you were actually *punished* for doing bad things. Kill too many people for no reason, you get a star. Kill a cop, automatic 2 stars (which you can't get rid of by running around). Hold up a store at gunpoint, get up to three stars within 15 seconds. Fire off random rockets in the streets, get stars. Screwing hookers for health never quite registered with me, but most other 'crimes' in the game had the police on your tail. Was it just the fact you were able to do these things? Sounds like a case of free will, to me.

--trb

Re:Well

[FictionPimp]

Actually, I own a gun for one reason. To overthrow the goverment. That is my right as allowed by the constitution. There is no other reason for owning a gun.

And yes, I was joking about wanting to kill people, I only want to slightly wound them.

Re:Well

[KDR_11k]

I still want surface to air missile launchers legalized. After all, how am I going to stop a fighter plane or an airplane hijacked by terrorists by any other means?

Re:Well

[MMaestro]

True in GTA you got 'punished' for doing bad things, but lets face it; the 'punishment' in the game was a joke. Assuming you weren't totally inept at driving or stood out in the middle of the street with no cover or escape, the police were a joke (star 1/2, let them come at you, get in car, run over, get out, repeat), the FBI/SWAT (depending on which GTA) were nothing outstanding (basicly police with bigger guns and faster cars) since some of the missions you would do later in the game were MUCH harder, and the Army was wimpy as hell (if you were good enough to even reach 6 stars.)

What would be much more 'punishing' would be the police had faster cars than you that could never be stolen (which I'm sure we've all done at least once in GTA), the mid-level police would be more intelligent (I'm pretty sure ramming your target's parked car and then getting out with no backup isn't very realistic), and the Army wouldn't have one guy controlling a tank, with no sidearm to defend himself, can be 'defeated' simply by throwing him out, and wouldn't try to use M-16s against a speeding car in a downtown civilian area.

Oh and getting arrested? Considering you end up with over a 100 million dollars at the end of all the missions, losing a couple thousand for going to jail is pennies.

Re:Well

[Oddly_Drac]

Your rant on gun violence was sadly misplaced here.

Yeah, I know. I blame a bad day. Ever get those?

He just used guns as an example, being the most obvious form of violence and killing.

Glad you put 'and killing', as most tend to suggest that guns aren't violent, people are. ;)

OTOH, the USA is seen externally on a par with the Middle Eastern nations that accessorise AK47s for weddings amongst nations that don't have legal gun ownership...the kicker is that you have a moral majority in the US that thinks games are bad, but a full auto submachine gun is a constitutionally protected right. Think upon it.

Re:Well

[Oddly_Drac]

"I only want to slightly wound them."

I'm with you there, except I'd rather use a fork.

Actually, I own a gun for one reason. To overthrow the goverment. That is my right as allowed by the constitution. There is no other reason for owning a gun.

I believe it was 'arms' and it was to protect against 'tyranny'. Mention that you have it for overthrowing government in the wrong circles and the nice men from the treasury department might pop 'round for a word. On a lighter note, the US appears to be a terrible shot if you keep missing the government every year.

The funny thing is I actually really like the US Government structure, it's just that I think the founding fathers considered a united front, rather than people testing out bulletproof vests...

Anyway, I apologise for being a horrendous prick the first time around. Bad day.

Oopsie, not the IDSA anymore

[numbski]

They're just the ESA now. Same argument, different acronym. Nothing else has changed. :P

Let's just get it over with:

[RaisinBread]

<argument /.readerFlavor="liberal">
Why in the crap can't people control their children? Its not my freaking fault that you can't - and you don't have the right to keep my mature content away from me, no sir. If you can't handle being a parent, don't even bother to breed.
</argument>

<argument ./readerFlaver="conservative">
I'm all for keeping crap out of my children's hands. If you can find a way to help me battle the ton of crap that is launched at my kids brains every day, I'm all for it. I'm getting tired of the things they can show on mainstream media these days. Society is going to the dogs.
</argument> ...

This seems to be an ongoing issue across almost every media - can't we figure some out that works for both sides?

</post>

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[Apreche]

I've got one solution that works for both sides. Do nothing different than what we do now.

The liberal can still get all their mature content.

The conservative wants to keep things out of their children's hands. All they have to do is remove all televisions, computers, and printed publications from their house. Maybe telephones too. There simply is no other way to absolutely guarantee your kids cannot get their hands on mature content. Oh, you also have to not let them leave the house without you. And they can't get on the school bus. And they can't go to public school. Hell, not even the supermarket is safe. Better lock them in their rooms and not let them out until they are 18.

While this seems like an exaggeration, its not. If you want to keep absolutely everything that may be violent or sexual in nature out of your kids brain, that is what you have to do. There is no other way about it without tromping all over the rights of others. So the solution is for those conservative types to simply do the best they can. There are things they can do to limit what their children see. But without doing everything I listed above your children WILL see things you don't want them to. So you have to be a good parent and teach them right from wrong instead of letting the TV do it for you. That is the only answer.

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[PainKilleR-CE]

I always find it interesting that the arguments on this matter can get labeled "liberal" and "conservative" when the people that have introduced most of the legislation in this area have been on both sides of that particular set of labels. It only gets worse when people try to set them to political parties.

The reality is that the government only moves on these types of issues when both sides, whether Republican and Democrat or Liberal and Conservative, manage to come to some degree of agreement. The scary thing is that it usually only takes one or two people on the side that's generally considered against it to swing the rest for it.

Look at the PMRC, the senators listed in the piece, any other group that's really managed to gain any amount of ground against artists. Usually you'll find that they're lead by the very people usually considered defenders of free speech.

When the most liberal states in this country have banned smoking in most public places, you have to start wondering what "liberal" and "conservative" really mean. I think, in the end, they just start to look like "want things to change" and "don't want things to change", and even that isn't quite right when you start adding modifiers like "religious".

This seems to be an ongoing issue across almost every media - can't we figure some out that works for both sides?

As long as people believe they need the government to shield them (or, more likely, their kids) from sex, nudity, violence, and "bad" words, it isn't likely that we'll figure something out that works for both sides. One side believes (because it happens) that government interference will cause them to lose either their creative freedom (as artists) or their freedom to take in whatever content they wish (as viewers/gamers/readers/whatever). The other side believes (because it happens) that as long as the material is available they won't be able to keep their kids from being exposed to it.

In the end, I believe the best solution is point-of-sale enforcement of ratings (with, of course, parental permission allowing those under the rated age to buy material, though this not being necessary if parents are not present) with no government interference. Additionally, parents should discuss TV, music, movies, and games with their children at a young age (and continue doing so as they grow up) so that they are aware that these things are not usually real, and to make sure their kids can separate reality from entertainment.

We all can control what our kids are exposed to in our own homes. We can't expect every parent to have the same level of control or the same assumptions in their own homes. For this reason, we should know the parents of the children our children play with, and we should prepare our children for the possibility that they may see or hear something we don't want them to. Certainly occasional exposure to violent media is not going to be as harmful if the child is properly prepared for it, and in most cases children can deal with it quite well even if it is more than "occasional", if they are raised to understand the differences and to have some morals in the first place (you certainly don't need church or school to teach your kids morality, and why would you want someone else to teach your kids that?).

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[RaisinBread]

Better lock them in their rooms and not let them out until they are 18.

While this seems like an exaggeration, its not.

While this may not be an exaggeration of what I would need to do to "keep absolutely everything that may be violent or sexual in nature out of your kids brain" ..... ... .. I don't see why anyone would want their kids to live in a cave. You are exaggerating the issue.

There is no other way about it without tromping all over the rights of others.

Well - I'll leave it up to you to explain to every conservative parent in the country why they need to hole up their kids in caves in order not to tromp all over the rights of others....

The point of the post is to find out what middle ground we can find that works for everyone. It seems like people still really bicker violently about this - which indicates IMHO, that we haven't found it yet.

But the stick-em-in-caves thing may work. You might have something there... nobody's rights trampled on there....

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[Anonymous Coward]

"and why would you want someone else to teach your kids that?"

Exactly. No-one can "teach" morality, you will only follow a behavioural code if it is one you have arrived at yourself (or if it is imposed externally and enforced perfectly - which is impossible). Parents, teachers, etc should restrict themselves to encouraging thoughtfulness and raising ethical issues - not laying down rules. A lot of teen acting up is a reaction against rules perceived as arbitrary and unfair.

Censoring violence won't help to make a child into an ethically-aware adult.

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[RaisinBread]

As long as people believe they need the government to shield them (or, more likely, their kids) from sex, nudity, violence, and "bad" words, it isn't likely that we'll figure something out that works for both sides.

I live in the United States of America where everyone has a voice. The government is actually written from scratch to help everyone get heard - movement for the majority while protecting the minority. S'not perfect, but it works. (I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but its what the foundation of the government here really should be about - take it for what it's worth)

The other side believes (because it happens) that as long as the material is available they won't be able to keep their kids from being exposed to it.

Not necessarily. I lean more on the non-sexual non-violent side, but I don't want people hushed. I just want their 'art' tagged so I can avoid it.

Point-of-sale only happens once you've already been given a good idea of the wares - I don't think that will really work as well.

I very much agree on parental guidance - but that seems pretty obvious, no? I very much agree on working with your kids to prepare them for the crazy in life: if we shield them to well, they won't be able to handle the scary things in life when the come along.

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[PainKilleR-CE]

I live in the United States of America where everyone has a voice. The government is actually written from scratch to help everyone get heard - movement for the majority while protecting the minority. S'not perfect, but it works. (I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but its what the foundation of the government here really should be about - take it for what it's worth)

While I agree with most of that sentiment, even your own comments suggest that we all know better.

Not necessarily. I lean more on the non-sexual non-violent side, but I don't want people hushed. I just want their 'art' tagged so I can avoid it.

I simply overlooked adding anything about ratings into my own suggestions. The reason is simple: I grew up with the ratings on movies and, to a lesser degree, stickers on music and ratings on games. I tend to agree with them (though I think the stickers on music are a joke, with (usually) no indication of why the sticker is there, and the stickers are often removed if language on the album has been censored, even though the themes may still be inappropriate). Game ratings in many cases actually got worse when they were consolidated under the ESRB, but have recently improved with descriptions of what may have caused the ratings (some of the previous rating schemes were more detailed on the content of the game, but didn't always include an easily recognizable letter/age system).

Point-of-sale only happens once you've already been given a good idea of the wares - I don't think that will really work as well.

I agree, as I said above, I simply forgot to mention ratings because they're already in use and prevalent in the three major entertainment industries. On the other hand, I have always found it interesting that music has managed to get by almost completely unscathed (with just the sticker, which is voluntary), and books have remained completely without any ratings or warnings (for the most part, any warning will have been put there simply for sensationalism by the publisher). I don't feel an urgent need to change these things, but I do believe that people would make better decisions for their children (and themselves) if they were better informed. Some of us can go find information elsewhere, but it's always helpful if there's information available on the item you're considering buying.

I very much agree on parental guidance - but that seems pretty obvious, no? I very much agree on working with your kids to prepare them for the crazy in life: if we shield them to well, they won't be able to handle the scary things in life when the come along.

It seems pretty obvious to us, but, in the end, it's most often what is lacking in the message pushed by those looking for the entertainment industries to change their practices.

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find it interesting that the arguments on this matter can get labeled "liberal" and "conservative" when the people that have introduced most of the legislation in this area have been on both sides of that particular set of labels. It only gets worse when people try to set them to political parties.

I think I probably agree, but it's worth checking that you're not making the common mistake of associating "liberal" with "left-wing" and "conservative" with "right-wing". There's actually something of a 2D system, like AD&D alignments - Democrats are Left-Wing Conservative, Greens are Left-Wing Liberal, Libertarians are Right-Wing Liberal, and Republicans are Right-Wing Evil^H^H^H^HConservative. Although, of course, the individuals involved might break the rules, so occasionally you find a Democrat who's gone Liberal without wasting valuable levels multiclassing as a Green, or whatever.

Hmm... the analogy fits rather well, if I do say it myself. Maybe we should introduce d20 rules to the election? "Bush rolls a 19, does 5 points of political damage to Kerry with his Campaign Ad of Great Persuasiveness +2. Kerry casts Expose Lies; Ashcroft saves, Cheney takes 3 points damage..."

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[PainKilleR-CE]

Exactly. No-one can "teach" morality, you will only follow a behavioural code if it is one you have arrived at yourself (or if it is imposed externally and enforced perfectly - which is impossible). Parents, teachers, etc should restrict themselves to encouraging thoughtfulness and raising ethical issues - not laying down rules. A lot of teen acting up is a reaction against rules perceived as arbitrary and unfair.

I'm not quite sure that I would go to the extent of saying that no one can "teach" morality, because children learn it every day in the same way they do anything else. They take a bit of what the authority figures in their lives say, and a bit of what they do, and come up with their own idea of right and wrong. More often than not it's the latter part (what they do) that is forgotten, although in many cases it seems that parents are even afraid to do the former (...say). Children learn the most basic and important lessons before they attend school or learn anything of value from religion, and they learn these from their parents, or, if not their parents, anyone else that happens to be around. If they aren't taught that they can't hit other kids, they may learn that they can get what they want through violence (or prevent themselves from getting hurt by striking first, or harder). If they aren't taught not to steal (note that I consider this the opposite of being taught to share... as I see most children being taught to share only by having things stolen from them by kids that know neither how to share nor not to steal), they won't see what's wrong with their behavior when they take from others without asking. and so on and so forth...

If you don't explain to your kids the difference between a television show and reality, they're not going to understand automatically that you can't drop anvils on people's heads and have them be there the next day to do it all over again, but much of that comes from the more basic lessons like not hurting each other. Many children learn by example what hurts and what doesn't (of if we catch them a slap on the hand when they're reaching for the stove may help enforce the lesson), and this simply needs to be extended so that they know that what hurts them will hurt someone else, as well.

Teenagers are actually a quite-different story, because most of them have whatever moral foundation they will take with them through the rest of their life. Specific events may change their opinions on certain things, or bring home the problems with some of their actions (especially things like drugs, alcohol, and smoking), but in the end they've already decided what justifies homicide, theft, and assault in their own minds, not to mention their ideas on sex and drugs. If they rebel, it's because they believe that you're being over-protective in some way, and either they'll find out you were right or you were wrong, but it may be some time before they come to that realization on their own if their moral base is strong enough to keep them out of any serious trouble. Many times they assume they were right (you were wrong) until they actually find out it was the other way around, but it's unlikely that you'll actually be able to tell them that for yourself.

Censoring violence won't help to make a child into an ethically-aware adult.

That's quite right, and anyone trying to do so would actually be quite hard-pressed to prevent children from being exposed to violence (sure, it may be a cartoon, but in the end, if they aren't discussing it with their parents, how do they know the difference?).

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[AuMatar]

When the most liberal states in this country have banned smoking in most public places, you have to start wondering what "liberal" and "conservative" really mean. I think, in the end, they just start to look like "want things to change" and "don't want things to change", and even that isn't quite right when you start adding modifiers like "religious".

There's a reason for this. I have a right to be safe in ym person and posessions. Your smoking harms my health directly- this is a proven scientific fact. My right to breathe trumps your right to smoke at all times.

In the end, I believe the best solution is point-of-sale enforcement of ratings (with, of course, parental permission allowing those under the rated age to buy material, though this not being necessary if parents are not present) with no government interference.

I disagree hugely. If ratings are enforced, theres a law enforcing them (if there is no law, they won't be enforced because you can make more money by not doing so). If there's a law enforcing ratings, that's censorship. The government is deciding what types of speech I should be able to say or listen to. This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[PainKilleR-CE]

>When the most liberal states in this country
>have banned smoking in most public places, you
>have to start wondering what "liberal"
>and "conservative" really mean. I think, in the
>end, they just start to look like "want things
>to change" and "don't want things to change",
>and even that isn't quite right when you start
>adding modifiers like "religious".

There's a reason for this. I have a right to be safe in ym person and posessions. Your smoking harms my health directly- this is a proven scientific fact. My right to breathe trumps your right to smoke at all times.

Ok, you didn't address what you quoted whatsoever, but I'll still bite:
1) My smoking harming your health is not a proven scientific fact in any way, shape, or form (primarily because the entire process required to scientifically prove something would require ethical violations in this case). It is widely believed as fact, there is some correlation, but it is not a proven scientific fact.
2) Your right to breath does not trump my right to smoke if you are in another building, a portion of the building seperated from the portion of the building I'm in, etc. California, before passing its ban on smoking in public buildings had already imposed very costly measures on restaurants that wanted smoking sections which gave you no trump card in this case.
3) Being safe in your person and possessions is not the same as being safe from the possible hazards of second-hand smoke. You are equally as free to stay away from people smoking as they are to walk away from you when you start bitching about it (or to blow smoke in your face at that point, which, so far, is not illegal).

>In the end, I believe the best solution is
>point-of-sale enforcement of ratings (with, of
>course, parental permission allowing those
>under the rated age to buy material, though
>this not being necessary if parents are not
>present) with no government interference.

I disagree hugely. If ratings are enforced, theres a law enforcing them (if there is no law, they won't be enforced because you can make more money by not doing so). If there's a law enforcing ratings, that's censorship. The government is deciding what types of speech I should be able to say or listen to. This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

The problem with your argument is that the government has already had a long-term policy of not extending full first amendment rights to the eyes and ears of children. You can say, write, film, record whatever you wish (actually there are some limits on that, as well), but you don't have a right to sell all of it to children.

The second problem is that you assume that you need a law to enforce ratings, yet this runs exactly counter to the way most theaters operate in this country (there is no law preventing theaters from selling tickets to R rated movies to minors, yet most will not do so), and the way many major retail chains have begun operating already. I have been carded at Wal-Mart and Best Buy when buying R rated movies (or unrated movies) and M rated games (movies at Wal-Mart, games at Best Buy). These are not the implements of law, but rather corporate reactions to their own perception of public opinion. If they believe that people want them to do this, it is exactly what they will do. They would much rather have that child's parents as a customer than the child, and the reasons should be obvious.

I'd also add that I'd prefer a system similar to what Blockbuster has done for years: allow parents to give some prior consent to allow their children to rent (in this case buy) material up to a particular rating. Although it can tend to put parents in a more hands-off position (not paying attention to what their kids are buying), it does allow the parents that want their children to have access to material to do so with minimal hassle (having to go to Wal-Mart with your 16-year-old every time they want to buy an

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[PainKilleR-CE]

I think I probably agree, but it's worth checking that you're not making the common mistake of associating "liberal" with "left-wing" and "conservative" with "right-wing". There's actually something of a 2D system, like AD&D alignments - Democrats are Left-Wing Conservative, Greens are Left-Wing Liberal, Libertarians are Right-Wing Liberal, and Republicans are Right-Wing Evil^H^H^H^HConservative. Although, of course, the individuals involved might break the rules, so occasionally you find a Democrat who's gone Liberal without wasting valuable levels multiclassing as a Green, or whatever.

If you're applying Right-wing and Left-wing to economic policies and Conservative and Liberal to social or moral policies (or to put it more bluntly, small vs. big government and religious vs. secular) then I'm pretty sure I agree with you. Of course, that would also make Democrats Left-Wing Liberal, though they try to hide it (and the Greens flaunt the fact that the Democrats hide it; then again, Bush is a Left-Wing Conservative). I'm not sure many people would agree with those particular terms, but I've been well aware of the bipolar nature of the whole thing since shortly before I started voting, and have rarely been happy with any candidate (never with a major party candidate).

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[AuMatar]

2) Your right to breath does not trump my right to smoke if you are in another building, a portion of the building seperated from the portion of the building I'm in, etc. California, before passing its ban on smoking in public buildings had already imposed very costly measures on restaurants that wanted smoking sections which gave you no trump card in this case.

Sure it does. My right to health is absolutely inviolate. You do NOT have the right to endanger it with your smoke. The fact theat you're smoking in public already means you don't give a fuck about annoying those around you, am I really supposed to believe that you'd check for people before lighting up, or put it out if someone came by? Of course you wouldn't. So the only way to protect our health is by banning it in public buildings. In your own home, you may of course do what you wish.

As for the costs to restaurants prior to that- please. If I walked into a bar or a restaurant, the smoke was overwhelming. An hour or two in a bar would leave my skin burning from allergies for an hour. Smoking sectiosn do jack squat. So yes, I still have the trump card.

The problem with your argument is that the government has already had a long-term policy of not extending full first amendment rights to the eyes and ears of children. You can say, write, film, record whatever you wish (actually there are some limits on that, as well), but you don't have a right to sell all of it to children.

This is itself a first ammendment violation.

The second problem is that you assume that you need a law to enforce ratings, yet this runs exactly counter to the way most theaters operate in this country (there is no law preventing theaters from selling tickets to R rated movies to minors, yet most will not do so),

Not true. There's no federal law, but many municipalities do have such. In those that don't, most theaters will sell R rated tickets to minors. In those areas which don't, it starts with one or two theaters doing so. After that, its a competitive disadvantage not to sell to minors. Very few theaters stick to the policy for long.

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[PainKilleR-CE]

Sure it does. My right to health is absolutely inviolate.

Perhaps to you, but it is certainly not a right protected, nor granted, by the law.

You do NOT have the right to endanger it with your smoke.

You're right, I have no more right to smoke than you do to health. Except, of course, that the government regulates the sale of cigarettes, which, so long as further restrictions are not in place (such as are in place for other vices), gives me some rights in this matter.

The fact theat you're smoking in public already means you don't give a fuck about annoying those around you, am I really supposed to believe that you'd check for people before lighting up, or put it out if someone came by? Of course you wouldn't.

That's entirely situationally dependent, but in the end, you're right, I don't give a rat's ass about annoying those around me, just as most of them don't give a rat's ass about annoying me. Believe it or not (you won't), I do check not only whether people are around, but which way the wind is blowing (or the currents caused by A/C/heating in buildings) before I light up. There are specific cases in which I feel that people bring it upon themselves, but for the most part I tend to respect people's wish not to have smoke in their face (probably because I haven't been allowed to smoke indoors since I was legally able to purchase cigarettes, until 2 years ago). Do I put a cigarette out if someone comes by? Of course not, because I tend to go out of my way to stay out of public walk-ways when I'm smoking, therefore anyone coming by has a reason either to talk to me specifically, or to come into an area that would be out of the way for most people.

So the only way to protect our health is by banning it in public buildings. In your own home, you may of course do what you wish.

Except, of course, that there are many ways to protect people from second-hand smoke that don't involve banning it from public buildings. One of the best I saw that didn't involve actually sectioning off an area had the smoking section on the second floor, with a good filtration system and ventilation fans.

As for the costs to restaurants prior to that- please. If I walked into a bar or a restaurant, the smoke was overwhelming. An hour or two in a bar would leave my skin burning from allergies for an hour. Smoking sectiosn do jack squat. So yes, I still have the trump card.

Your trump card appears to be an allergy, which isn't a trump card at all, though it does put you in a particularly sensitive position. Still, there's a difference between a smoking section as done in many states and a smoking section as was required under California law prior to the ban. In California, a non-smoker in a restaurant (bars had somewhat different regulations) would have little chance of even knowing there was a smoking section if they didn't ask preference, as they had to be completely separated. If I wanted to in most states, I could sit less than 6 inches from a non-smoker and have a cigarette, then blow smoke across their food, but that hasn't been possible in California for well over 10 years (long before the ban was enacted). As I said myself, though, the ban of smoking within a particular distance of an entrance was actually a good thing, allowing people such as yourself, which are particularly sensitive to tobacco smoke, to not have to walk through it simply to get into the restaurant.


>You can say, write, film, record whatever you
>wish (actually there are some limits on that,
>as well), but you don't have a right to sell
>all of it to children.

This is itself a first ammendment violation.

Well, then, let's see how many children can buy child porn, after all, it's porn, for children, right? Oh, wait... The first amendment is not as all-encompassing as some would like it to be, and, in the end, the courts have long upheld the belief that children do not have the same rights as adults, a

"Gamerdad.slashdot.org"

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, geez... doesn't ANYBODY else write games information besides him?

Who needs the violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, the violence just bores me and gets in the way. I was playing the newest Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban game on PC with my daughter, and the constant need to fight monsters both teaches bad lessons, and detracts from the enjoyment of the game. It also distracts from the game in that it requires a constant lesson in morals, as opposed to just playing the game.

The game would be just as good if not better if it just kept all of the exciting mystery rooms and challenges, such as ...

(physical ones like jumping far enough across chasms ... and mental ones like figuring out that you need the dragon to place the fireball in the FIREPLACE, whereas before, it always placed it on that ceiling tray thing) ... and got rid of the monster fights, which just tend to interrupt the action.

The violence in computer games is always boring. I LOVED Half-Life - except for the monsters. I could never figure out how to play in God-mode, but I would have done so in a millisecond. I just wanted to explore new, secret rooms and tunnels and things, I can't stand when the game interposes some dumb "shoot this thing" requirement that gets in my way of doing that. To me, it's a sign of dumb coding. It's the easy way out in writing computer games. "Hey, we can't figure out anything new to do on this level! Hmmmm, I know, let's throw another monster in there!"

Does anyone know of games similar to Half Life but which exclude the violence? I would snatch up tons of that type of game in a heartbeat. And, I would feel more comfortable playing such games with my kids, too.

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Oddly_Drac]

"the constant need to fight monsters both teaches bad lessons, and detracts from the enjoyment of the game."

What lessons are those? That mythical monsters need hitting?

Your daughter is a lot smarter than you think, and you should check out the value system being promoted in advertising and media before coming down hard on games. After all, I'm willing to bet that you found the sight of a cat being viciously pummelled by a mouse amusing the first time around? I know I did.

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not advocating or justifying censorship. But for ghoul's sake, add a button in the game for turning on or off the monsters. YMMV, so be it, do what you want with your kids, and play with Monsters "On" if you like.

But as I was saying, they bore ME, and they bore and frighten my kids, and I'd like the option of playing with Monsters "Off." How hard would that be to code, really?

Re:Who needs the violence?

[wraith0x29a]

I prefer games that are both intellectually stimulating and the violent so I can exercise my brain and / or destress with some random violence depending on my mood. Examples of games that do both well are "Morrowind" and "X2-The Threat", both are pretty non-linear and let you play pretty much however you want to, either cerebrally or violently, much like real life.

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Orome]

Does the violence in games have a positive social effect ? Probably not. Does it have a negative social effect ? Probably not.

But to say that the violence in games is unnecessary to gameplay is going a bit too far . Your argument that having fights is a cheap and lazy way of writing a computer game is inappropriate. It takes a fair bit of programming skill to have good enemy AI, which can vastly enrich the experience of a first person shooter. I found this especailly true in Halo, a game with the best enemy AI I've ever seen. In the case of games like Doom3 the monsters (which have very little intelligence, being monsters) simply add to the atmosphere of fear and dread which is the purpose of the game. It would be a shame if the Doom3 engine was used to make a game full of jumping puzzles (something which I absolutely detest in an FPS, but which you seem to like).

Re:Who needs the violence?

[PainKilleR-CE]

Buy games that don't have the monsters in them. There are many (, many) games out there, especially puzzle-types (the Myst series, for example), that don't feature fighting monsters as part of the game. If you buy games that don't have them, they will make more games that don't have them.

As for the Half-Life comments specifically, well, the game was a first-person shooter, shooting monsters is almost the entire point of the genre. First-person perspectives have moved into other game types slowly, and games like Half-Life have brought in other aspects that make the game something other than just run-and-gun, but, by and large, first-person shooters will always be shooters.

Oh, and to get god mode in Half-Life, I believe you simply had to enable to console and type "god", or possibly "god 1" into the console. The directions to do so are available on the vast majority of Half-Life-related websites, except, possibly, the one maintained by Sierra, the game's publisher (coincidentally, Sierra probably still publishes a lot of the "no monster fights" type games these days).

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question.

I HATE Myst and games like that. They are TOO focused on puzzles, and their environments are not anywhere near as interesting as the environments in games like Half-Life. What I need is a game that is exactly like Half-Life, but without any monsters/violence. Harry Potter came close, its violence was more mild and cartoonish, but still, it got in the way of the fun parts of the game.

Re: God mode, I was using a balky Win98 Intel computer at the time, and for whatever reason despite trying many of the hacks on the 'Net, I could never get God mode to work. And now, Half-Life won't even install on my upgraded Win2000 AMD-64 machine. A FAT vs. NTFS file system problem? Intel vs. AMD? Something else? I haven't had the time to really pursue it yet.

My point is that I think there is a market for games with all of the bells and whistles of a Half-Life except the monsters/gore/violence, especially amongst parents. You're right, Sierra and such companies should make it easier for us to play their games in non-violent mode.

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, the:

- foreboding music in a game like Half-Life, and

- the dark hidden corners and slimy pathways, and

- all of the dangers of not completing the jump across the chasm correctly, and

- the concern when you haven't figured out the puzzle to the room and maybe you will be stuck there forever,

are MORE than enough to create an "atmosphere of fear and dread." I've got enough challenges and delicious spookiness playing a game like that, I don't need any monsters trying to kill me.

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

My violence tendencies start when I'm playing a puzzle game. If I miss an arbitrary jump, "accidently" do something stupid I often find myself speaking a range of curse words:
"You stupid cheating @$***$$@#!!! game!

*Note how I mentioned that the game was cheating. I often blame the game when I do stupid things.*

Anyway, it's at about this time that I get a murderous rage and start looking at my sister, the shovel, and the soft soil in the backyard, but I digress!

Re:Who needs the violence?

[PainKilleR-CE]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question.

I HATE Myst and games like that. They are TOO focused on puzzles, and their environments are not anywhere near as interesting as the environments in games like Half-Life.

The latest game in the Myst series has a better environment, from what I've heard. I only own one of the Myst games myself, as it came with one of my DVD drives, and I don't care for the genre.

What I need is a game that is exactly like Half-Life, but without any monsters/violence. Harry Potter came close, its violence was more mild and cartoonish, but still, it got in the way of the fun parts of the game.

Personally, I found most of what you probably liked about Half-Life to be what got in the way of the fun parts of the game (that, and head-crabs + crowbar...). I found most of the puzzles to be far too simple (well, what do you expect for an FPS game, but still...), and more often than not they simply took away from the action and/or suspense that was occasionally built up in the game. What I'm trying to say is, I guess I can't help you much with what you're looking for, but I'm pretty sure the games are out there.

Re: God mode, I was using a balky Win98 Intel computer at the time, and for whatever reason despite trying many of the hacks on the 'Net, I could never get God mode to work.

You don't need a hack, but I forgot that there was another command needed: "sv_cheats 1", after that it's simply "/GOD". Of course, you have to get to the console first, which requires editing the target line on the shortcut to the game or editing the .cfg files by hand. I believe the readme.txt file also has information on how to do this. I used to know this stuff by heart, but it's been a LONG time since I played Half-Life in any form.

And now, Half-Life won't even install on my upgraded Win2000 AMD-64 machine. A FAT vs. NTFS file system problem? Intel vs. AMD? Something else? I haven't had the time to really pursue it yet.

NTFS, nope, that's what I'm running here. AMD, doubtful, most of the people I knew when I was active in the community used AMD. That 64 on the end, though, is a possible problem, which might take quite a while to figure out. Another possibility arises if you don't have Win2k up to date, as I believe there were a couple of patches that addressed compatability with the game. Again, if I was still active in the community, it would probably be a simple problem to work through, but since I haven't kept up, I don't know where everyone's hiding (in other words, most of the web pages are dead or inactive).

My point is that I think there is a market for games with all of the bells and whistles of a Half-Life except the monsters/gore/violence, especially amongst parents. You're right, Sierra and such companies should make it easier for us to play their games in non-violent mode.

Note that I didn't say anything about allowing people to play in non-violent mode. I simply believe that there are violent games, and non-violent games. Unfortunately, the tendency towards flashy graphics (which Half-Life no longer has, but did at one time, for maybe 2 months) and so forth comes from the same area that tends to drive violent gameplay, i.e. first person shooters. Fortunately, the technology for a game like Half-Life runs on such low-level computers that it's now available for almost any type of game, and as time goes on, more genres are utilizing that type of technology (which is why I pointed out the Myst series, as the most recent one makes heavy use of 3D interactive environments that you can actually move a character around in). Most of the developers that produce violent games never even think that people might want to play their specific game without the monsters and shooting, because this is usually a specific part of the gameplay they have designed their game around.

Games that are designed with non-violent gameplay in mind, are moving closer to the technology

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah you described 2 of the current 'hit' type games. The FPS, and the RPG, skipping the RTS.

You may want to take a look at some of the older LucasArts games and some of the older Sierra-online games. If you can still get them. Some are hunt the pixel. But others such as Full Throttle or Day of the Tentical you will find quite a bit of adventure in. Also you may want to try some of the 'dead world' games. There are quite a few. Most of them involve solving interesting puzzles and exploring. This group includes games like Myst, and 7th guest.

It sounds to me that the FPS and the RPG is not your cup of tea. I can see that. I am currently playing one of the Final Fanatasies. As I am sitting in my 30000th battle I am thinking this is getting rather dull. But I stick to it because its fun to explore and find more story.

ME? I would play more FPS if they didnt make me sea sick. I get sim sickness BAD. Havent yacked from it yet. But probably will someday... The whole industry is currently starting to shake out again. As there is just a HUGE glut of bad FPS and bad RTS's out there. There is also a glut of good games too. This is not good. As people stop buying things as its not all that different then the last game. Last one of these to happen was JUST before 256 colors was the thing to have. So perhaps we will see a change of focus again. I hope back to more advent style. But I like those best. :)

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Oddly_Drac]

"I am not advocating or justifying censorship."

Oh, don't bother about that with me. Personally I think some things should be censored, or at least have large warning stickers suggesting that the contents of a given book are 'garbage'. I'm a lot less libertarian in my old age because my optimistic youth has given rise to the current state of affairs.

" How hard would that be to code, really?"

It's more about the game balance itself, although I'll agree that there is a market out there for non-'Director' games without a violent bent, but how much of a market?

Parenting as changed

[SmallFurryCreature]

More and more parents are not doing their job instead shoving the parenting responsibilty onto others. Two extreme examples. 1: Some immigrants from shall we say more traditional countries are complaining in holland that their kids are undisciplined. In their view it is the state via the police and schools that should teach discipline and they are suprised dutch teachers are not allowed to beat kids. (Note that it is not an immigrant issue, school beatings were only recently outlawed in england)

Second example, a recent investigation by a bbc program into daycare nurseries. With an undercover worker they intended to show how bad the care was. Except that I as an old angry white male couln't see what the problem was half of the time. The kids being left alone or in the care of untrained staff that sure is bad. A kid somehow managing to burn its hand very very badly on a radiator (sounds unlikely since anything with a spinalcord would yerk the hands back long before it could burn so badly) that is bad too.

A child being told of for being a pest sounds like teaching the kid a little bit of discipline. No you are not allowed to be a pest to everyone now go play alone until you can play together.

Apparently this is not "right" anymore.

But parenting is not just the parents. It is society as well. I don't mean the complex society, I mean the people in your neighbourhood. I grew up in an old part of town with a whole mix of people. As I grew up it became one of the bigger town in but when I grew up a few houses down was a working farm. So we had the very very old to the very very young. Kids weren't just raised by their parents they were raised as much by the older kids in the neighbourhood. Those unlucky to grow up 4-5 years behind a group of girls never learned to walk until ten being carried everywhere. I watched my sister and in turn was watched by an older girl. It was as normal to get a bandaid from a young girl as from your own mother.

The idea that nowadays both parents work and they don't take care of their kid is wrong. My mother worked and in general most of the mothers did now I think about it. Certainly the farmers wife did. It was just that they made sure there always were enough people around to watch over things. I can't remember ever having been left alone for real. There always was someone responsible around.

Much later I lived for a while in almere. Wich is a very new city and I noticed something. There was a very distinct age border with the kids playing. These kids did not grow up with older kids. No older kids to teach/show them what is and what isn't done.

Where I currently live is a small group of kids in a mostly single household area and they are between 7-10 yrs old. During the summer days they do never leave the street they live in, no kids around to go play with. Their parents don't seem intrestted in taking them somewhere or even playing with them. Their is large park extremely close yet it is rarely used.

Maybe I am just old but I think my childhood was a lot better. I learned not to bully because the kid you bully would have an older brother/sister/nephew/etc. But you also stood up for the younger ones in turn. It was a community.

Every child will go through a hurting other people stage. They simply will not have learned yet that kicking someone hurts. The old way of teaching that is hurting the child back. Not a beating but a hard slap on the leg will soon teach it that kicking other people is bad. If for no other reason then that you will be hurt in turn. Not very nice but it works. Current more PC educators seem not to agree. Problem? There methods don't work.

So I don't think video games are that much of a problem. They are merely an excuse. Sorta like don't kill people they just make it a lot easier.

Kids being not raised by parents who have not been raised because all the parents want to be their kids friends or worse don't want to be parents. Take the recent so-called x-box murder. This has nothing to do with x

Re:Parenting as changed

[Anonymous Coward]

But parenting is not just the parents. It is society as well.

I don't have children by choice. Your children are not my responsiblity and you can't guilt, bribe or threaten me into taking any responsibility for your hellspawn.

I'll do the enlightened self-interest stuff like support tax increases for education and look out for the little shits when they run into the road without looking and other common decency stuff, but I won't raise your brat. I will not watch, protect or educate your children for you -- not even for piles and piles of money any other forms of bribery. Your children are not my responsiblity and I catagorically refuse to help you raise them.

Just be happy I don't yell at the little monsters and traumatize them in direct response to the physical pain I feel when one of the shriekers has a temper tantrum at about 85db in the soprano range two feet from my ears when I'm eating dinner at a restaraunt.

Must be a slow day.

[Alkaiser]

Anyone who actually reads the article will discover...it's a reprint of something from November 2003. Whoopty-freaking doo.

Re:Must be a slow day.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's a quickie. :P

Re:Must be a slow day.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a reprint of something from November 2003

I'd dispute that. Reprint's usually have better grammer and spell checking than that article. Actually, I'm sure the original did too.

Re:Must be a slow day.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Gamer Dad must have taken an OCR scanner over the entire thing. It was pretty awful when I read through it.

Phht.

[scowling]

I have been a consumer of violent movies, music, books and games for thirty-odd years. They have had no effect whatsoever on me, and I'll kill any son of a bitch who tries to tell me otherwise.

Re:Phht.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have had effect on you. Come kill me, big boy.

Nothing new

[wyldeone]

Gamespy just published the <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539197p1<nobr>.<wbr></wbr></nobr> html?fromint=1">second part of their d&d history series</a> which talks mainly about the controversy around d&d and some kid who tried to kill himself. Some people with their own agendas twisted it to their own purposes, trying to ban d&d. It just goes to show that some people are obsessed with this, and no matter the curcumstances they will try to stop things like this.

Controversy Tied to Sales Gains

[miller60]

Media controversies about game violence are said to be bad for the industry, but they often seem to be good for game sales. Manhunt sales surged following highly critical media attention when it was believed the game contributed to a nasty teen-on-teen murder in the UK. It turns out the media accounts were mostly wrong off-base (the cops said it was related to drugs and theft), but by then the game had been mentioned in news stories around the world. No game maker wants to see their work implicated in a violent tragedy. But game publishers know what presses the media's buttons, and I think some of them count on that to generate buzz about a game. GTA San Andreas is a good example, as the NY Times is already writing about it.

Precisly what I mean

[SmallFurryCreature]

The above person would have been an outcast, the mad old hermit. The house avoided by the kids, that parents warn not to go near too. Then one day the police break open the door to investigate the smell and a rotting corpse is found.

We either stand together or we shall all hang seperatly. This is usually used in big nobel speeches about human rights. It is just as important when it comes to your town.

Note that I don't care what the above person chooses to do. Just that those that choose to be parents need to realize what parenting is. And that city planners need to realize that just creating a new suburb in the middle of nowhere can create a very sterile and unnatural place for childeren to grow up in. People become people by watching other people be people. In short kids learn from older kids. Remove that at your peril.

Oh and the temper tantrums he complains about? A kid growing up alone does that. Do it in a group of other childeren and the child soon will learn that it accomplishes nothing. Be a pest and you will spend a lot of time playing alone or you will just be clobbered. Only bad parents tolerate tantrums.

Violent Language

[DreadPiratePizz]

Violent Language in media DEFINATELY effects children. A child may not be likely to stab his friend after seing it in a videogame, but he is probably a lot more likely to yell "Die Bitch" after hearing it in Unreal Tournament.

Re:Violent Language

[Lehk228]

I say "You fight like Nali" after kicking someones ass

Re:Violent Language

[Anonymous Coward]

"Violent Language in media DEFINATELY effects children."

Fuck off and die, you stupid motherfucking cunt. I have been playing fucking videogames my whole fucking life, and there's nothing fucking wrong with the way I fucking talk. I just want to fucking kill any fucking person who fucking syas that fucking videogames fucking adversly fucking affect fucking the fucking way fucking that fucking pe- fucking -ple fucking talk.

The reason behind violence in video games...

[bVork]

All active entertainment (and most passive) involves conflict. Conflict can be of many different types (emotional, ideological, etc), but the easiest to depict is physical. Thus, violent games are the most common, simply because they're the easiest to create. There are games with other types of conflicts (Purple Moon games, though very crappy, are examples of emotional conflicts.), but violence is still the predominant form. I guess we'll just have to wait and hope for innovative designers who manage to make compelling games with other forms of conflict. The all-but-disappearance of commercial adventure games is particularly sad in this light, as it was the only type of game to contain a 'man vs environment' conflict that was, for the most part, nonviolent. Judging from this, I expect that games with nonviolent conflicts will spring from the adventure genre, and from the independent game designers who keep it alive.

Absolute Hogwash!

[Robmonster]

If games really influence people, then all the kids who grew up playing Pacman would today be standin agound in darkened rooms, listening to repetative electronic music and eating lots of pills.

Re:Absolute Hogwash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been to a rave lately?