Slashdot Mirror
Feeding Frenzy Over Violent Game
25 to Life isn't even out yet, and already it is under fire by everyone from NY Senator Charles Schumer to CNN host Nancy Grace. Commentary on the illogical feeding frenzy is available at Gamasutra, Press the Buttons, and Game Girl Advance. From the Press the Buttons article: "As you read this transcript, pay attention to how Grace and her guests frame their sentences. Although this plays out like an off-the-cuff debate, each and every spoken word is primed to invoke outrage. There are plenty of loaded words and phrases in there: 'murder simulators', 'rewire the brain', an attack on Bill Gates for personally allowing this game to exist (as if he himself is out there coding it), and so forth. The program also showed photos of real police officers who were killed in the line of duty at the same time the game's preview trailer was on screen."
Who needs a murder-simulator when you can join the police force and experience the real thing?
+ Shoot a young unarmed black man to death with 41 shots!
+ Kill a young woman by shooting a "non-lethal" pepper-spray projectile into her eyeball!
+ Needlessly taser young children, women and elderly people with 50,000 volts as you see fit!
+ Beat up, shove to the ground, handcuff and arrest blind elderly women in their own home!
Yes, order POLICE-FORCE today from your local videogame retailer and you too can be a civic-minded hero!
And by the way:
"This is what your kids will be digesting if you buy this," Grace said as game footage was shown. "One law officer after the next gunned down in the line of duty."
Kids will only be digesting it if adults buy it for them. Presumably most kids too young to be (theoretically) impressionable enough to go out and kill cops becuase they played a videogame about it don't have the $70 for an Xbox game.
"Here's a philanthropist and a powerful man, the richest man in the world, and yet he's making available to children around the world on Xbox a cop-killing game."
How much of the game centers around killing cops? For all we know, killing cops is just a small incidental portion of the game that they're focusing on because they're sick fucking perverts trying to exploit the public by making it an issue. And how is it a cop-killing game? I assure you, the cops in the game are not real. They are rendered animations displayed on the television. Kind of like a cartoon. No real cops are harmed.
Well, if you want those kids to be susceptible to your recruiters in a couple of years, you better start breaking down their inhibitions now so they'll be blood thirsty killing machines when you want them to be.
The gaming industry deliberately invokes this kind of "negative" publicity to move product. The same kind of thing happened when Take Two made Manhunt.
I had a look at Manhunt and yeah, the murder in the game is pretty gruesome (stabbing people rather vividly, suffocations with plastic bags, etc). The game itself was pretty godawful though. Gameplay was repetitive, nothing outstanding in the game to set it apart except for the violence.
I guarantee that sales will be higher for the game as a result of CNN's free publicity. Won't make the game any better though.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Sigh... the usual suspects start up with the usual rhetoric. How boring. No doubt we'll get the usual "Ban Video Games!" cries from the ambulance chasing lobby. If I'm remembering my ancient history correctly, in 5th Century BC Athens, bringing an unconstitutional proposal was a crime, which carried the possibility of the death penalty. Perhaps we need the same thing today. Of course, 5th Century Athens also had all kinds of nasty stuff we definitely don't want today, so I guess I won't press that one too far.
On the other hand, I can't help but be slightly disappointed that Eidos have put this game out, judging by what I've seen on the trailers. It's not that I don't defend their right to do so; believe me, I would. It's more that... well... it feels like they're letting the side down a bit. This is a debate that is ultimately going to have to be fought and won in the court of public opinion, like it or not. The other side has some very persuasive people and just because the constitution is on our side here, we shouldn't feel that victory is assured. It would have been *nice* if Eidos could have exercised a little restraint for the next year or two, given we're probably at a critical juncture right now. Like I say, I feel I have a duty to side with Eidos on this one, but come on guys, grow up a little.
... hell, we card at movie theaters to see the latest R rated movie... why shouldn't we be carding at game stores to play an R rated game? (well, its equivelant rating, anyway) ...
... for years! ...
Just as many people have been sneaking into R movies, loaded with sex and violence (and denigrated POLICE! Oh LORD HAVE MERCY!)
hmm but then again look at the general direction our country is going...
===
Honestly, humans love violence and they love action... it's better they get it from a game than having to seek it in the real world...
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
or join the marines. True story. Friend of mine just graduated from the marines with high marksmenship. The CO of the base came to talk to him after the graduation. he made plesant talk for a bit. then pulled my friend aside to talk to him privately. my friend came back looking spooked. after a while he told me what was said.
"you know what the best thing about the marines is? You get to kill people and it's legal."
and these congressmen are worried about murder simulators. hasn't anybody noticed games like this have been around for ages?
Violent games and movies allow us a kind of buffer-zone to live out our repressed thoughts and feelings and desires.
I honestly believe that without such products available, there would be far more incients of extreme violence occuring in the world today. Yes, there are those few who don't know reality from fantasy and commit horrible acts against their fellow humans, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, I blame neglegent parents, other family, educational officials, friends and other individuals who frequently interact with these people for not noticing strange behaviour sooner and addressing it. There are always warning signs. Always. Don't agree with me? Tough. Read a book. Take a course in psychology. Most experts will tell you there are plenty of warning signs the present themselves early on. Know some young kid who hurts animals? You'd be well advised to red flag such a person because you'll be seeing them in the newspaper someday.
Pornography plays an important role as a buffer, too. I'm certain there'd be many more rapists and other sexual deviants out there if it weren't for adult entertainment. However, the government seems to have found a way to make it difficult for many of these individuals to get their fix.
As far as members of the media are concerned (and I'm ESPECIALLY talking about those that report for CourtTV) let's keep your opinions to yourselves. The news is not your personal bullshit outlet to voice your feelings on the goings-on of the world. You are there to report the facts. That's why it's called the news. In fact, let me offer the dictionary definition:
"new information about specific and timely events"
Also, you might be interested in this:
newsworthiness: the quality of being sufficiently interesting to be reported in news bulletins"
Opinions are simply NOT newsworthy unless set in a forum that supports such discussions. As I mentioned earlier...this is no more prominent on any other network as it is on CourtTV. Nancy Grace should receive an award for the number of times she finds a way to tack her personal feelings into the cases they report on. I honestly don't care if you think John Q. Defendant is guilty and should burn for his (alleged) crimes. Guess what? He was found innocent by a jury of his peers. Shut the fuck up and move on. What's that? One of your guests has a different opinion than you do? Oh, that's horrible! Now's the time to attack him and then cut to a commerical before he can offer a rebuttal. Bitch.
And now I'm going to move on to family. Parents...guess what? THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT HERE TO RAISE YOUR CHILD FOR YOU. The government is busy with far greater projects...stop wasting their time, take some god-damned responsibility, and BE A PARENT. Definition:
"Parenting comprises all the tasks involved in raising a child to an independent adult. Parenting begins even before the child is born or adopted and may last until the death of the parent or child. Parenting is a part of the relationship within a family."
Did you read that part about parenting comprising ALL THE TASKS involved in raising a child? I saw it too. Since a child is ill-equipped to make the same distinctions as adults when it comes to violence, sex, and other questionable parts of life, it is YOUR responsibility and no other's to
What kind of sick fuck would use such images for the purpose of defaming a game? It is completely out or proportion and demeaning to the officers. Whether it's relevant or not is not important, it just shows an incredibly bad taste and lack of empathy for the people victimized by these killings.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Most games are nothing like that, that's the worst generalization I have ever seen. When ppl think games they think mario and pokemon and stuff. Not this.
http://rinoa.nu/rinoa/ If you come here... You'll find me. I promise.
Disclaimer: I am aware of the problems surrounding using the word perspective when referring to CNN.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
Yes, that's just what gets me wondering. As you've noticed, a certain segment of the game industry seems to live _only_ to one-up last year's ultra-violent game. Games are made and advertised with the _only_ claim being "we're even more gruesome."
It's not even that new an issue. Soldier Of Fortune, for whatever other merits it may (or may not) have had, was AFAIK only marketted as basically "hey, look, we have more blood and gore textures than before."
Which, on one hand, doesn't scare me or anything, since like any FPS gamer I've been largely desensitized by now. Meh, another game with lots of gore. Nothing new here.
But on the other hand it gets me sorta wondering where it will stop. As I've said in the above paragraph, "like any FPS gamer I've been largely desensitized by now." That's the whole issue: you've seen it once, you got used to it, next year they have to claim even more blood and gore to make the news.
We're already years past the point where kills are surrealistic. You have people being split into "gibs" by sniper rifles. (No, even emptying an AK-47 clip into someone wouldn't gib them IRL.) You have more blood sprayed around than a human physically has. Etc.
Well, what next? Up to what point _can_ this farce continue? To the point where they paint the whole map red with the blood of the first kill? Or?
"The gaming industry deliberately invokes this kind of "negative" publicity to move product. [...] I guarantee that sales will be higher for the game as a result of CNN's free publicity."
Actually, I'll be even more cynical and say that it's probably a deliberate PR coup.
PR companies are a wonderful thing. They can generate a lot of hype all over the news, by masking it all as a news instead of as an ad. We've become desensitized when it comes to ads. "News" on the other hand, give you far more bang, for far less buck. (Think of how much it would have cost to get this much screen time for ads instead.)
So what I'd be willing to bet is that the whole scandal and frenzy was deliberately started. I wouldn't be surprised if some helpful PR company gave the media and everyone not only a tip of the game, but also conveniently the photos of dead cops and everything. Just to be sure it does explode with a big flash and a loud bang.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It's disgusting that people think games like this are suitable for children.
But since hardly anyone actually does think the game is suitable for children, and where possible, children are banned from buying it, I'm getting a bit bored with the "fior the children" argument.
False. The military IS using computers to train their recruits, but it's purpose is not to break inhibitions but to train combat tactics, you know; so you can win with minimal casualties on both sides.
False. The study showed brains respond similarly to videogame violence as real violence. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg1862
The rest of the interview is pretty funny with Nancy proving herself to be a bad listener and in general arrogant and unable to solidly back up her own opinions. When mrs. Opri is on a roll, Nancy's only options seems to cut her off, and so she does.
There's also this little quote:
Is this actually true?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I know I'll be flamed for this but here goes:
Obviously, parrents and stores shoulder the largest portion of any potential problems associated with violent (or otherwize 'mature') games falling into the hands of their children; since everyone here probably agrees with that I won't elaborate.
A problem that most people don't notice (or care about) is that game developers need to be far more responsible or else they will loose the right to create these games. For the most part, violent 'mature' rated games contain less substance than your average sports game; that is the game's only interesting feature is the realistic body deformations, or the ability to shoot police officers and pedestrians, or what-not. Game developers HAVE to start thinking in a more responsible manner and consider the level of graphic violence that is necessary inorder to make their game apealing and stop producing games that sell simply because they're more violent.
Now, I know people will think I'm saying that all games have to be rated everyone; what I'm really saying is that games like America's Army are violent but do not add unnessary 'realism' to their violence so it maintains a teen raiting; if they had realistic body deformations the game would be on the news and it would have a 'mature' rating but there would be no added benefit to the game.
In merseyside England, and whilst he obviously dislikes the GTA series, he doesn't mind me playing them. I think that is very reasonable of him
the fact that you can play either side of the war in this game. In fact, I typed "25 to life" into google and got this link: Choose your side You can play as gangsters or cops, but I suppose it isn't as morally satisfying to these asshats to: A) Report on the whole story or B) Complain about a game where cops kill gangsters.
You've just made my decision of whether to purchase this game a lot easier!
You see, when an alleged bastion of free speech - such as a news outlet - starts attacking others for exercising their free speech, it makes it simple for me to pick which side I should be on. Partly because I enjoy defending free speech, and partly because I really enjoy pissing off people who get riled up about something without paying attention to context or reason.
That green slime had it coming.
Talked about it here.
I saw some preview of the game in the context of the controversy.
Seeing it only wanted me to buy the game more, being a long time GTA fan. But, I'm going to wait until the reviews come in. I don't want another Getaway on my hands.
Although it states the obvious, it is still nice to read...
http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=050621
Keep open minded - but not that open your brain falls out...
....to see the various talking heads spewing thier usual skewed morality modded into Counterstrike:Source for target pratice. I remember that former military guy they dragged onto the cameras when Soldier Of Fortune first arrived....blathering on about "murder simulators" and teaching kids that headshots are good (although with the current shortage of trained snipers available for deployment in Iraq...keep on playing kids). Of course every time some whacked-out kid shoots up a school this particular bandwagon gets jumped on en-masse. Hmmmm...why not moan about something useful...like...say...teen idol Britney Spears fronting trailer trash pregnancy....or....hmmmm....those various senior level government officials with documented claims of false military service...or....how the media distorts everything in order to sell advertising-regardless of effect.... Pardon me while I go play Super Mario 3 followed by a little stroll to the post office.....
"We herd sheep....we drive cattle...we LEAD people! Lead me...follow me...or get out of my way!" GEN George Patton
Sounds like a bitchin' game -- when can I buy it?!?
Another one bites the dust
Now I know what I need to do! No need to work hard at all.
1. Build crappy but cheap/free 3D engine.
2. Put lots of cops/reporters/hookers/whatever in the game to kill.
3. Contact the news media/self righteous watchdogs/politicians about horrible violent game
4. Profit!!
See, I always got confused by the ??? part before, but now it is sooo easy! Why have I been wasting so much time?
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I hate it when people think that it is the games that do this kind of stuff. Like certain people can't "tell" when a game real or fake. They think that gamers go into this waking state when playing games and just start going on murderous rampages.
It all started with Doom. Nothing happened with that (though people still blame it for outbreaks of violence).
Then it went to Duke Nukem 3D. Nothing. Then Carmageddon (so bad that the UK version has "zombies" instead of pedestrians). Nothing.
Up to today's games where Grand Theft Auto is now the focus of so much scrutiny. Give it up people. No one is responsible for your actions except for you. Games aren't going to send anyone on a murderous rampage who wasn't going to already go on it any way.
I will tell you this though: If all games do indeed go to the next-gen consoles don't be surprised if we see a signifigant reduction in video-game violence. Due ot the closed and controlled nature of the console market and consoles themselves, government officials can regulate that a lot easier than anything they could on the PC. That was what made the PC so popular in the first place: all of the violent games were there (Wolf 3D anyone?).
... but if you really want your feedback to go somewhere that it might do some good, consider the CNN Feedback page. I can guarantee you that CNN higherups aren't paying attention to Slashdot, but there's at least a sliver of a chance the opinions might get heard if the Feedback page gets bombarded with comments about this.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
You know what else is good? Put the console/computer in the living room, where everyone can see what the child is playing, instead of having it holed up in their room where no one has any idea what they're doing.
Come on... what fuckin' purpose could games like these possibly serve... Grand Theft SA pushed it too far as it is... assault your prostitute, kill your pusher competition...
Now that's what I call entertainment!
If the gaming industry keeps this shit up they'll end up were Hollywood is today... tons of shitty content and a massively shrinking audience!
I had a look at the screenshots, and quite frankly, the ones that they are displaying are very console-looking and really quite bad. If they ever want to really win over anyone in the gaming world that is over the age of 18, they're going to have to try harder than that.
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
There is a pretty good chance that the game-maker WANTED you to think this way, that they WANTED outrage over their game. If that is the case, you are playing right into their hands.
I for one enjoy violent games. What I do not enjoy, however, is being manipulated. The aformentioned situation is not unlike religious nuts voting for Bush on a stance that will never come to frutition.
My thoughts on the game? If its good, I might buy it. But I won't buy it just because some stupid assholes are all in a tizzy over it. With that reasoning, I'd smoke crack, turn gay, or move to France.
Why would anyone want to shoot cops "for fun"?
All gamers know a game is defined by its gameplay, not the graphics, storyline or subject matter.
So why?
Nintendo (I don't own one btw - I have ps2) seem to produce enjoyable, highly playable games without resorting to real-world violence to sell it.
I suspect if more of those who defend this kind of game had been subjected to extreme violence they might not have the stomach for it any more.
I know I don't after service in the army. Shooting people is not "fun" and should not be represented as such.
LOL, people still listen to what CNN has to say?! That tickles my fanny! Most people outside of the US learned very quickly after the Iraq debacle that CNN and the other American media corps were nothing but Republican mouthpieces. Indeed, considering how wrong CNN was about Iraq and how badly they failed to report the truth, there's nothing to suggest they will ever become a real news agency.
Their focus in on profits. And controversy creates ad views, which bumps up their bottom line. Never forget that. They are not there to supply accurate, honest news. They are there to make money.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Every week some new game gets politicians to hop onto their soapbox (AKA the news) and discusses the deterioration of youth that video games are causing. The latest game to get on CNN and some legal show called Nancy Grace is Edio's "25 to Life". Nancy Grace adds to the likes of Prosecutor Jack Thompson and NY Senator Charles Schumer as the group that is destined to protect our youth by trying to get this game banned. I wish someone would pay me millions of dollars to talk about stuff I know nothing about. Imagine if I got paid to write a rant like this; I'd be rich, but no one likes to hear the other side of the video game violence debate. Maybe I should just lie and say games are the downfall of our youth so I can go on CNN and make some money. Back to the game; "25 to Life" is actually a violent game with a conscience, because unlike GTA, etc. it gives you the choice to play as either a police officer fighting crime or a gangster fighting the police. Most of you probably haven't heard much about "25 to Life", well that's because it isn't out until August 16th. Isn't it just wonderful that the politicians and TV personalities are already condemning the game even though they haven't played it all? I watched Nancy Grace just to see how crazy the debate was, but what I saw wasn't a debate instead a discussion between people who all believe the same thing. Not one of them has played this game, but all could agree that the game will cause kids to kill police officers. During the "debate" the trailer and screenshots of the game were displayed between pictures of fallen police officers who died serving their country. At this point I couldn't watch anymore, because those officers gave their lives for their community and exploiting their memory to try and convey your idea is sickening. As a game developer who wants to one day become a police officer I don't believe this game should be banned or even rated mature. The game is a story of life; choose to be good or evil, and suffer the consequences. Games that let you make choices like this should be encouraged and honored.
Get your pitchforks and torches...