Game Ratings; Are Combat Sims Worse Than FPSs?
Two separate articles on violent games today. The Toad pointed out a
New York Times AP story
on how AOL will start rating games; conflicting signals on whether "adults-only" games will be kept. And atomJack mentioned a
metamute article which "compares how 1st person shooters have taken a lot of flak, yet sim games seem to be fine with everyone. The article argues that the sims are so realistic they are basically training kids for war and in fact some are used by the military for reference." Personally, I think the Mortal Kombat-style games are worst of all - but maybe that's because I don't play them.
My cousin was really wowed when Win95 came out, and quickly got addicted to Minesweeper. Then he went to North Korea and tried to stick a flag on a mine. It was difficuly IDing him even with the dental records. It was quite sad, but that's what he gets for buying Windows.
You should see the artillery I have in my back yard.
What I get out of playing either is dependent on me and what I learn out of it is limited by my person. One can say, FPS's tend to make more violent children because more children gain traits that reflect violence.
I'm sorry, but this issue isn't black or white.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Kasparov must be locked up right now. Chess and card games and such were the original sims. They were used to teach strategy and analytical thinking to children and to keep adult's skills sharp in peacetime. Now all of sudden this is a bad thing? Are these the same people who argue against Harry Potter on the grounds that he encourages that great evil: Literacy?
I know how to move my mouse and click a button.
.30 cal rifle.
Yet, for some reason, I have no idea of how to determine which ammo a given rifle uses, let alone how to load it, cock it, or disengage the safety. If it jams, I'm screwed. How do I adjust it if the sights are off? And I still have no idea where the mouse port is on my Mauser rifle.
One thing I certainly am not prepared for is the sore shoulder after firing a few dozen rounds from a
How is everyone training for war and honing their weapons skills and accuracy (by playing Rainbow Six) except me?
8-bit monkeys, 4-bit ducks
It was "cute" when the two kids in Mars Attacks! used their 'obvious' skills at shoot-em-up arcade games to blow away aliens with their own ray guns; this is still merely a movie story, neatly separated from reality.
I suspect that we may be getting a confusing combination of:
- Games where graphics are, at least in some ways, so "realistic" that they may be increasingly confused for the real world, and
- Unusual, but well-publicized, cases of extreme violence that are so bizarre that they would normally be confused for fiction.
Concern comes in if this "breaks the abstraction barrier," and leaves kids having a hard time telling the difference between reality and fantasy.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Not that alone - there are many out there who actually agree with me!)
The question is not how violent are the various games kids play, but why in the world do they waste so much time on them? It would seem like they have nothing to do. Why in the world do parents waste money on games for their kids??
People who live for entertainment and fun end up with empty minds, empty souls and empty pockets.
Do yourself a favor. Spend your every moment doing something productive. You will discover what real achievement is. Your leisure time will be that much sweeter. When you stop wasting time in front of the console and give yourself a mission in RL, you discover what real fun is.
People who play games on their computers are wasting time + resources (storage & cpu cycles) = money. If you aren't interested enough in computers to be doing something useful with them, then get outside, read a book, or earn a buck raking someone's lawn. Make it your point in life to use every ounce of your energy to help people out, and if after five years you hate yourself for it, I'll send you $100.
Where is the dividing line between FPS and Sim? Look at Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear. These games are FPS that also have elements of real swat tactic (sim). It is seen as constructive because you play the good guy (government agent) killing the bad guy (terrorist). There seems to be a point to the killing in games like this (a distincly American/Eurpoean point.) Lets imagine a sim where you play the Iraqi Army. You get to kill Kuwaitis and Americans. Do you think there wouldn't be a bit of outcry about this? I do, especially by the American media.
I think with games, the defining line between "good" games and "bad" games, be they sims, FPS or whatever is the American Media's view of what is good and bad. (Most game companies are American, and most of the criticism comes from the American media. I'm not trying to country motivated.)
The American media sees value in simulations of WWII battles because they are part of history. It sees value in Rainbow Six because it teaches kids how to become good SWAT team members. *snicker* Whereas Quake, Blood, etc are games that graphically depict violence for _no_ sociological beneficial reason. They are there for killing alone. They do not sustain the lifestyle and innocence of the American people that the press so wants to keep.
If it protrays intentions that are dangerous to the current (supposed) American way of life then it is "bad". If not then it is "ok". It is all media propaganda. Why won't they let us change?
Gotta run to the "electric mind society"
Random Task
"I can hoist a Jack. I can lay a track. I can pick and shovel too. I'll do anything you hire me to." - John Cash "Legen
This is what the article describes as 'blatant racism':
I don't see how references to Ho Chi Minh and rice are racist. Ho was a leader of Vietnamese, rice is a staple of the Viet diet, then and now. There are many rice paddies in Vietnam. Vietnam is known for being humid.
Not one thing in the quoted text maligns the Viet people or culture. That and the incredibly strained logic attempting to link Jane's with 'Western hegemony' makes me think this is all one giant troll. Looking at it that way, it's actually pretty funny.
-- Jeff Paulsen
I've noticed this trend, and I just want to know if anyone out there agrees with me:
Parents are looking for something to blame kids violence on.
That said, I don't consider violent games the problem, or even violent movies the problem. I consider the problem the fact that parents are not spending enough time with their kids. Parents want to plop their child in front of a computer or T.V. and forgot about it. If parents are so worried, why don't they spend some time with their child instead of letting him play those games and watch those movies? I've played violent games all my life, I even played games called demonic like AD&D. However, my father spent a lot of time with me, and those games were exactly what they were meant to be, games. I didn't look up to them as parenting figures. The only thing that came out of my time playing MUDS and other stuff like that was I learned a lot about computers.
Well, enough rambling, that's my two cents.
"Out, OUT! You demons of STUPIDITY!" - Dogbert
As a parent of a 5-year-old with a VERY active imagination, I've begun to worry about this issue a little.
My son has a very difficult time understanding the difference between what he imagines and what is "real". As such, I carefully monitor the content of what he sees/watches/plays. As he begins to grasp this distinction better, I probably will have less concerns.
All this is an aside to another point: It seems like this "imagination" ability is really stressed by teachers & pre-schools. Really. It's what Barney's all about for instance (I mean, the show is essentially about making stuff up, so's Rugrats also).... I wonder if this deliberate cultivation of "suspension" is causing more problems than the violent content itself.
Maybe this answers why most people play ultra-violent videogames and watch lots of violent TJ & movies and are never violent, and yet we have a few, spectacular incidents of very violent behavior in youngsters who seems oblivious to the "reality" of the event. Maybe were getting a higher percentage of these than before because of other factors, like the rise of "disconnection"? I don't know, just thinking out loud... what do you think?
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE