I'm no genius and I don't have all the answers but I'll at least take a crack at it. Fundamentally, it comes down to trust. Who do you trust and how much and how often? Terrorism is a phantom enemy. You don't know about it until it's too late. The building is reduced to rubble, the hostage is already a hostage, etc. Is it acceptable to record the conversations and the comings and goings of everybody in Athens because of the fear of terrorism? And for the majority of us (I dare say) on Slashdot I'd bet that we believe that it's not a stretch to say that this tech is or will be soon used by other law enforcement agencies for their own purposes. I don't even dare to respond to anything past your first paragraph - it begs arguing situations instead of policy ideals - so don't take it as a slight that I didn't rejoin that topic. That's a discussion without an ending.
Instead of trying to draw larger truths, lemme just offer you my opinions. I don't trust my government. Bush, Chaney, Rice, Powell, Wolfie, and the rest are all on my shit list. I want them or their subordinates knowing my business like I want a baton shoved up my ass. We're talking about the Olympics but I have no problems believing that the current US administration is just salivating at being able to get their hands on that tech, if they haven't already.
My government lies to me. In fact, short of defectors like Richard Clarke, et al, it seems incapable of admitting a wrong. So if you're asking me, when is surveillance acceptable, my answer is NEVER.
Now, label me a member of the tin foil hat brigade if you wanna, but I'm not stupid either. I see the cameras at intersections. I know that a camera is on me when I walk into most stores. I get it - privacy is under a never ending string of attacks. That doesn't mean I'm happy with it.
From where I'm sitting - and on 9/11 I was very close to the WTC - I'd rather have privacy than safety. The potential for abuse is too large without honest public dialogue about how surveillance will be conducted and what limitations will be put on it.
I know you don't want to hear the Ben Franklin quote - but there's truth in it. If you want safety, there are only two ways to guarantee it - go someplace very very far away from everything else, or be monitored constantly. Everything else is a security threat. In the interest of knowing what I'm talking about, I'm reading 1984 right now. Even Winston and Julia knew that if you played right in front of the cameras, you could manage a secluded meeting now and again. Therefore, there is no safety, only the illusion of safety.
You could install cameras in every corner of the world but people would still die.
The fundamental problem with surveillance is that it takes its cue from the military. The military ethos, as espoused by our administration, is pre-emptive strike. That means force. We will win through force, invasive force, whether it's a bullet in the abdomen or a camera recording conversations.
Why not try the method known as 'dialogue'? I realize that dialogue involves honest intentions from all dialoguing parties - but ultimately it's the only solution. Otherwise, we'll blow some shit up, then they'll kill some people or blow some shit up and that cycle will continue. In matters of domestic security (as well as event security like the Olympics) it will only get more invasive. Those that are deemed dangerous according to some unknown algorithm will be dealt with - vaporized was the word used in 1984. It's not going to work.
So my answer - if it makes you feel better to see a rent a cop at your grocery store after 11pm. If it makes you feel safer to know that somebody or some camera is watching your every motion in public places - I'm glad. But it's not security, it's just an illusion. The solution to terror is to eliminate the reasons why terror exists. But we're not serious enough about solving the problem to contemplate that solution. At the moment, anybody who consider
In space, no one can hear you scream...
on
Saturn Hailstorm
·
· Score: 0
I don't think your comparison is a good one. My father is a record producer (mostly jazz and blues like Etta James, Pat Matheny, Jim Hall, Chet Baker, etc.) and I'm here to tell you, the sequence of an album is crucial to an album. Maybe it's not that way for your run of the mill one hit wonder, but the placement of a song in an album can make a huge contribution.
I'll give you one quick example. On Etta's album 'Matriarch of the Blues' she sang the Elvis tune 'Hound Dog'. When I first heard this album (which my Dad didn't produce, btw) before it was mastered, the song was the last one on the album. When you finally got to it after hearing everything else, it seemed tacky, tacked on, completely out of character and unnecessary. I was asked to do a sequence for the album. In my sequence I had 'Hound Dog' as the second song on the album. It flowed much much better here and coming after the first tune on the album actually made some sense. As a listener it went from a selection that seemed unnecessary to one that made sense.
Your particular comparison to having to read the back catalog of an author to fully enjoy the newest work is more aptly compared with the idea that to understand Etta's newest record you have to be up to date on her catalog, and you're right, that's simply not true.
Let me give you one more example of why sequencing is important. On a typical blues album there are a few shuffles, a few slow tunes, a few up tempo tunes and hopefully an obvious single. It's common practice to put the first single in the first three songs on the album. Many people believe that it should go first. Why? Because that's why you bought the CD. After that you want to spread out your songs. You don't want two shuffles back to back or an extended lull in the middle of the album with 3 ballads back to back to back. It's also worth considering the key of the song in addition to the tempo. Several songs in a row in the same key can be a real annoying. It gets repetitive as hell.
All of this only applies really when you listen to an album from beginning to end. If you skip around, then you're making your own sequence.
Try the sequence thing for yourself. Make your own mix CD with songs you like. Then try arranging the songs into different combinations. Notice how lead outs and lead ins can make a big difference. Notice the difference between songs with dramatically different tempos being placed beside each other and a sequence where the tempos build or fall gradually as the mix progresses.
Believe it or not, a lot of thought goes into sequencing an album. Not everybody is good at it, but when the right songs are arranged in the right mix, the album trancends the individual songs. Witness the White Album or The Wall as two classic examples.
Seriously. If you look back, every war to this date can be traced back to some form of colonization or another.
That's not true. Economics dictates war, not simple colonization. It's true that colonization is a form of economic expansion, but it by no means is it the sole reason for war. For a good overview of why people do what they do, check out the highly respected book Cows, Pigs, Wars, & Witches: The Riddles of Culture.
In particular, you might be interested in the chapter titled Primitive War.
"History books brim with details of wars in which the combatants struggled for mastery over trade routes, natural resources, cheap labor, or mass markets." - p. 51
In order for a consumer to exist, a market with sellers already in the market also needs to exist. I think that quote was intended to mean that media companies will feel comfortable about creating the market when they feel that their IP is safe.
Now, needless to say that the market already exists, and flourishes in the ways we're all familiar with. That they don't recognize that is the fault of their own hubris. The works (songs, movies, etc.) are obviously already available online for phree. But it's true, until DRM is figured out, you won't be able to pay them for the privilege of (what I consider to be with DRM) a defective product.
If you'll RTFA (ahem) you'll see that the book really refers to gender inclusive games, not 'girl games'. The question you ask is one the book attempts to answer with a remedy.
ASCAP and BMI (and SESAC which you didn't mention) represent music publishers, so it's inaccurate to suggest that those organizations would reap huge rewards from DRM.
Let's face it, we don't really know much about a game review past what it says. We don't know the conditions under which the game was played. We don't know if it was a preview build that the reviewer played in a warehouse for 20 minutes somewhere or if he got to spend the 80+ hours it takes to go through some of the longer RPGs. And isn't that important?
The obvious difference between a game and a movie also comes into play. Go see a movie and you've seen it. You're in and out in 90 minutes and you've had the complete experience. But with a game, it's a much more personal experience. Either you reduce the game to its mechanics (which plays into the stereotypes that the gaming industry claims they want to get away from) and speak of it in those terms, which ISN'T THE POINT of why people play games, or, the reviewer can talk about his own experience.
When you try to boil games down to their mechanics you end up with dumb ass statements like "In the end, ESPN NFL Football is truly the best playing football game available for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox." Why is that a dumb statement? To put it in context, he parsed that sentence to allow that Madden could really be the better game.
Well, lemme ask you a question. Would you rather play the most fun game or the better game? And how is a less fun game actually better? Do we get the answers? Nope. But with blogs we could. Matter of fact, lemme quote again from the same GameSpot review. "If you're on the fence, trying out both games is really the only way to know for sure..." I have an idea, why don't you do that, write about it, and let me know. Because right now, you're just undercutting the rest of your review.
I'd trust something Gabe or Tycho recommended before I'd trust anybody at IGN or GameSpot. And I have to think that it's because they've basically blogged their way into having an opinion that I know I can trust to be consistent.
If I knew the personalities of the GameSpot crew with the same clarity that I feel I do of the PA guys, then YES I WOULD want to hear how the game made them feel. After all, the point of a game is how it makes you feel, not how technically advanced (or not) it is. Besides, I think that info can also be covered in a blog style. Am I alone here?
Just to reply to #2, and I'd be curious to know what you think of this theory.
You want to know why Neo's powers work outside of the Matrix. Easy. He's part machine, part human, totally self-actualized. That's right, he's part machine. He's in the center of the venn diagram comprising humans and machines. Think about it, this is just logic. Sentient machines. How in the hell could they ever be sentient? The answers are in the Animatrix. Humans made machines. Humans gave machines AI. Humans were cruel to machines when machines achieved a level of AI that made them sentient because the machines asked for equality. A war broke out and eventually the machines subjugated humanity and imprisoned them, simultaneously holding them captive and using them as batteries to power their own prison: The Matrix. The Matrix was designed by the machines, which while growing their own AI now began with code made by humans. Humanity is flawed and by association, so are the machines. However, humanity compensates for the flaw by being able to think creatively. Machines cannot. Since computer programs are dictated on logic, the Architect, a machine, designed the Matrix to be a perfectly balanced equation. But he hasn't gotten it right in six tries. Eventually, his program spits out a remainder in his equation. This remainder, The One, is human, and the anomoly defines The One as having the capability to break the computer program. Why? Because he's the imperfection in an otherwise perfect equation. He is able to affect the program because he wields the power of balance, the most imporant power of all, as the system is predicated on balance.
Now, in order to understand why his powers affect machines outside of The Matrix, one only need to connect the dots. The Matrix was made by a machine that is sentient because of an artifical intelligence program. The Matrix was flawed, even in spite of the machine's best attempt to solve the problem. This would indicate a flaw in the master AI. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The program that makes machines sentient is shared among all machines, and at least part of it is predicated on flawed human code. So the inherent problem with The Matrix also afflicts all machines since it's all part of the same logic structure.
Final question to deal with - why does his power grow over time? The answer to that is easy: faith. Revolutions ends with the Oracle espousing her faith in Neo ("Did you know it would turn out like this?" "No, but I believed"). All throughout the 3rd movie they were coming back to beliefs and faith. The Oracle remarks to Neo about the first time she met him that he was "jittery as a june bug and now look at you..." and how he's grown into his role as The One. His powers grew as his belief grew.
I know that's not quite the 802.11b inner ear antenna you were hoping for, but don't you think the logic follows? Furthermore, I would take issue with your statement of this debate being indicative of bad movie design. It's indicative of GOOD movie design. It's movies you don't give a shit about that you don't speak about. An example of bad movie design would be the way Zion was poorly introduced to the viewer. It lessened the emotional impact in the 3rd movie because we spent a lot of time protecting people we didn't have any real connection to. People debating why events happened just illustrates that the movies allow for multiple interpretations. It's a feature, not a bug.
Just for the hell of it, I wanna tell you that the most fun I've ever had with the series was with the demo for the first game on the Dreamcast. Me and a friend took turns competiting to see how high we could score after we got all 5 tapes before time ran out.
The particular way we played the demo forced you to be a good trickster but also efficient in which lines you ran to hit the boxes, get S-K-A-T-E, etc. The benefit the demo had over the real game was the ability to redo that level from the beginning over and over...
One question about the online thing. Do you (or Neversoft) think that the backlash from non-Live subscribers who are Xbox owners and want to play games online but won't subscribe to Live is great enough to deprive everybody even the opportunity to play the game online (without going out and buying a ps2)?
Maybe I'm not around enough cynical gamers, but I haven't heard anybody say "so and so put their games on Live? What assholes!" By the same token, I've heard plenty of people say "EA wouldn't put Madden on Live? What assholes!", for example. So why go antagonizing the vocal hardcore userbase when it's obvious that nobody from the other side would have said anything?
I dunno. I personally think that it was probably done for business reasons. I work in the music industry, and you know how logical our own decision making process can be. So it wouldn't surprise me if some of the same kind of wonky thinking went on somewhere down the line.
And one more story, since I'm telling stories. That same friend I played the Tony Hawk demo with now has a 5 year old son who loves playing THPS 2 & 3. He's consistently pulling 100,000+ in The Hanger on 2. Not bad for being five.:)
I'm looking forward to showing him THUG this weekend.
A few thoughts from a long time fan of the series, owner of the game (picked it up last night) and current frustrated customer with the Activision server that's currently tanking and breaking the "your face in the game" feature.
First, I picked it up for the ps2 but I own all 3 next-gen systems. I hear ya on your reasoning not to be Live compatible but as a gamer, I have just one response: I'm already paying for Live. If the choice is between no online play or subscribing to Live, consider myself subscribed. If it's signing up to Live AND to some Tony Hawk service, that'd be too much. For example, I own several versions of Phantasy Star Online for the DreamCast, Gamecube, etc. I haven't and won't pay to play it online. I've taken their freebie month but that's it. The cost of Live, I've gotten over. I've made that plunge. So from my perspective, Neversoft is really more concerned with your second reason for not releasing a Live enabled version. I'm cool with that, just don't pretend to be protecting me. I don't feel protected. But wanting to protect the brand or whatever, I get.
As for game reviews, I tend to agree with you. I thought about what a douche bag the IGN reviewer was for saying that the running aspect was hard to control. He must not have read the hint on screen or the hint in the manual that the d-pad makes dude walk and the right analog stick makes dude run. What a douche. So we know that his review is *total* bullshit.
My solution for reviewers would be for them to admit how much they played the game. I've had many experiences in the franchise modes of various current football titles that revealed to me problems or bugs that no reviewer mentioned. But you'd have to be fairly deep in a season to find them. So, boom, right up front. Time spent playing: 5 hours. Highest level achieved: Manhattan. That's all it'd take.
I don't imagine that people really think every reviewer finishes every game. So finishing a game obviously isn't a requirement for reviewing a game. As such, it shouldn't be embarrassing to say how much time went into the source material they're reviewing. In the absence of it, we're left to believe that the guy at IGN really is a douche bag and isn't just spending 10 minutes with a preview copy.
My quick thoughts on the game: THPS2x was probably the high water mark for the series in my mind. This is the best game in the series since that one. It might change again as I play more, but right now, I see it as being more fun than 3 and 4. And being able to run around has totally opened up the game.
Your question, I believe, has this at its root "shouldn't we let the free market decide what's best for itself"? That answer is no. The free market has no public interest. The only thing it respects is cash. And there are more ways to skin a cat than by giving it what it wants. Look at Enron and Worldcom. Look at the World Bank and IMF have done to 3rd world countries. Bill Moyers had a great report on NOW a week or two ago that's worth seeing regarding those organizations.
The WTO was just voted down by Argentina. So clearly there is cause to believe that letting the biggest check writers run with their imaginations can be harmful. What you're suggesting is that these large corporations, who, by the way, are trying to monopolize the PUBLIC airwaves (on loan from Congress), have a case for making their mouthpieces even bigger.
This strikes me as the same logic that says we should overturn the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform because restricting soft money is akin to trampling on free speech.
Bullshit. The correct answer in both cases is that there needs to be limits on an individual or corporation's power to exert undue influence on the populace. What that means is nobody can be the sole voice of information in town by owning the major methods of media consumption (TV, radio, newspaper, Internet access) and it means that just because somebody has buckets of money that doesn't allow them to gain more of a say in who should be elected than say, yourself.
I don't want to turn to Uncle Sam for everything. I'm not suggesting anything radical. But I do think that it's in the interest of everybody to make sure that power and influence are not limited to a few corporations and people like George Soros who have the money to do whatever they want. (And I admire him. I threw him in just to make the point that I'm not engaging in partisan bickering. I think there is a larger moral point here.)
Overturning the FCC Regs was the right thing to do.
And just to address your point head on, nobody is trying to dictate what these channels put on air. The main point of the new regs was to expand the percent of media in a market that one company could own.
Seriously, with the RIAA taking $2,000, that has to mean something. Either it means that they don't think handing a $2,000 fine to a low income single parent family for the actions of a 12 year old about a non-obvious point of law to the majority of Americans isn't going to generate much bad publicity for them (or not as much as it would have otherwise), or it means that they've just released a negotiating price.
The day Madden 2004 came out there was much rejoicing and bouquets of flowers were thrown at the game from every reviewer possible.
The day NFL ESPN Football came out... nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The next day, crickets. The next day, I already had the game and made a post on the IGN.com board about it. As far as I know, that was one of the first reviews (albeit on a message board) of the game on the Net. Finally, that night GameSpot posted their review. The next day, IGN.com had theirs. In previous years, the reviewers didn't have a problem calling one game better than the other. Now they couch their opinions in double speak. GameSpot ends their review by saying "ESPN NFL Football is truly the best playing football game available for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox". Why qualify? Does Madden or Gameday work better as a coaster or something?
Meanwhile, while waiting on the reviews, I was treated to some nice advertisements on both IGN and Gamespot from Madden. The ads were all about how Madden was #1.
Personally, I do think that there was some dealing going on behind the scenes by EA. I think EA has been trying to undermine the marketing efforts of Sega. And in business, I guess there ain't nothing wrong with that. But it's still unsavory. I can nitpick on ESPN NFL Football and I can nitpick on Madden 2004. I've got dozens of hours invested in both titles. But one thing is clear to me, ESPN NFL Football is the most complete package.
EA climbing in ESPN's lap should be taken as a slap in the face by Sega. It should also show (along with the fact that the websites to support ESPN NFL Football were down even a few days after the game came out) that Sega is hopelessly outmatched and outgunned by EA's marketing dept.
Which is a damn shame because they have the better game.
Wow. That's some of the most intersting stuff I've read recently. I'm serious. That's great info to know. The groups and how they respond to the games seem like a good starting point if one wanted to conduct a serious long term study of how violence in games affects a player. I can think of two more critical areas of study very easily. Look at how gamers who prefer to play alone respond to a violent game versus gamers who like to play in clans or on teams, what have you.
It would also be interesting to track gamers over a long period of time. I believe I read something about a study that was supposedly being done in Japan that addresses this issue, but I don't know much about it.
However, that being said, it also sounds like an impossible study. How can you isolate gaming from the rest of society and culture? I don't have an answer for that.
You said "I believe that there is a relationship between violent games and the violent actions", and I would agree with you. It's just common sense to think that you are what you spend your time on. This pretty much sums up my Mom's thoughts on the deal. I grew up in a pretty conservative home, and the Bible is pretty clear about guarding what you see, hear, and let into your heart. But that does seem to simplify the issue a bit too much. We aren't just the sum of our own experiences. Experience counts, but it's not the most important factor when determining patterns of behavior.
Games are immersive entertainment. That's the revolutionary thing about them. That's why I think we can teach and educate with games. The Army must agree, what with making "America's Army" for recruiting purposes.
But let's agree that gamers come to the controller already full of baggage. Even young kids already have a lifetime of experiences upon which to use to put the game in proper context. It's this context, or the lackthereof, that is the determines how a gamer responds to a given game.
While playing "Vice City", and I know I'm not alone here, one night I was in Blockbuster. When I left, some lady had left her car running on the curb so she could drop off some videos in the drop box. I instinctively thought that it would be possible for me to steal the car. I didn't do it. But it crossed my mind. I didn't even think about it seriously. But it crossed my mind. Does that prove anything?
Yep. It proves that I had gotten pretty immersed in playing "Vice City". So much so that my brain was trying to apply game principles to non-simulated events. Why wouldn't it? It's in the definition of the word 'immersion'. But that doesn't mean that I'll ever steal a car. If I did nothing but read books on how to steal cars from here until eternity, I honestly don't think I'd steal a car. I would for sure think about how easy it is. I could learn all the ways to do it. But when push comes to shove - it's not in me. I bet the majority of people are the same way. Back in the day, instead of stealing cars, it was knocking blocks apart to find the mushroom. My brain responded the same. The difference is the game I was immersed in.
It also proves that the environment I grew up in gave me enough basic respect for people that I'm not going to jack somebody given the chance.
The problem is, some people are damaged goods. They're predisposed to violence. I would imagine that the guy who got angry when you asked him to stop playing and never filled out an exit survey is one of these people. Some of them were friends of mine when I was in school. My (one time) best friend called in a bomb threat to my junior high school while we were both going there (this was 15 years ago). We hung out all the time. But I would never think of doing what he did. He was crazy when I met him. He'd be crazy with or without television, books, movies, games, etc.
The problem is, there are lots of places to go to get your violence on in America. So why single out games? It just doesn't make sense.
Sorry about the lack of formatting in the previous post... I guess that kinda steals the thunder from the argument, huh?
Dammit. Well, here it is formatted this time.
I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better.
It's either that, which I think it a common problem, or, you think that morality should be legislated.
If you want to legislate morality, just stop reading this now. We're not going to see eye to eye on this topic. But if you're interested in gaming and hope to see the flourishing of new and innovative gametypes, then by all means man, get off your high horse and grab a controller!
I'll make this quick because I'm at work and don't have the time to haul out the soapbox.
The case can be made (I've made it previously here) that violence is a necessary evil in developing technology. Just look at the airplane. I don't have data for this claim, but I would imagine that technology in health care has seen great leaps largely due to war. Games are the same way, we get the good tech by programming the easy (and desirable) interaction: killing. As people, we like it. We're good at it. So there should be no confusion as to why people are drawn to it.
You know that this evolution is working because there are so many titles out there that are not "murder simulators" as people like yourself, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity like to call them. Of course, Nintendo has been a major player in developing these non-violent AAA titles. (And when I say non-violent, I don't mean devoid of violence, I mean violence isn't the primary gameplay mechanic.) But they're not the only ones.
You think the answer is to have a government subsidy for game developers who don't include guns in their games. Do movies, books, magazines, TV shows, and real people all get breaks too for the same reason? And where do we draw the line? Can I made a violent piece of entertainment media about a historical act? What about that Mel Gibson movie? Does he need to wipe some of that blood off of Jesus? Speaking of The Passion, the same kind of thought that causes somebody to label a game as a "murder simulator" is also the same kind of thought that makes people think that The Passion is about the Jews killing Jesus.
Hello! Anybody in there? Quick, what's 2+2?
Did you know that they took the games out of that Wal-Mart in West Virginia BUT LEFT THE GUNS? This is what happens when you draw irrational conclusions based on your own assumptions that the world should run on your own moral model. You overlook the easy stuff.
Even this is a dumb statement, "now is the time for research into potential solutions". Why? And for what purpose?
Let's just get extreme in our hypothetical situations. Let's think about a world where violent videogames are banned. Hmm. Can't say I can see a difference. Not after listening to my new Slipknot or Jay-Z album. And especially not after seeing Natural Born Killers (which you might remember also got similar blame).
It's at this point in what has turned into a sarcastic rant (work be damned) that I defer to Sean Baby, whose way better at the sarcasm than me.
"Murderers get their inspiration from all kinds of places, thanks in part to their own personal insanities. But no one filed a lawsu
I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better.
It's either that, which I think it a common problem, or, you think that morality should be legislated.
If you want to legislate morality, just stop reading this now. We're not going to see eye to eye on this topic. But if you're interested in gaming and hope to see the flourishing of new and innovative gametypes, then by all means man, get off your high horse and grab a controller!
I'll make this quick because I'm at work and don't have the time to haul out the soapbox.
The case can be made (I've made it previously here) that violence is a necessary evil in developing technology. Just look at the airplane. I don't have data for this claim, but I would imagine that technology in health care has seen great leaps largely due to war. Games are the same way, we get the good tech by programming the easy (and desirable) interaction: killing. As people, we like it. We're good at it. So there should be no confusion as to why people are drawn to it.
You know that this evolution is working because there are so many titles out there that are not "murder simulators" as people like yourself, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity like to call them. Of course, Nintendo has been a major player in developing these non-violent AAA titles. (And when I say non-violent, I don't mean devoid of violence, I mean violence isn't the primary gameplay mechanic.) But they're not the only ones.
You think the answer is to have a government subsidy for game developers who don't include guns in their games. Do movies, books, magazines, TV shows, and real people all get breaks too for the same reason? And where do we draw the line? Can I made a violent piece of entertainment media about a historical act? What about that Mel Gibson movie? Does he need to wipe some of that blood off of Jesus? Speaking of The Passion, the same kind of thought that causes somebody to label a game as a "murder simulator" is also the same kind of thought that makes people think that The Passion is about the Jews killing Jesus.
Hello! Anybody in there? Quick, what's 2+2?
Did you know that they took the games out of that Wal-Mart in West Virginia BUT LEFT THE GUNS? This is what happens when you draw irrational conclusions based on your own assumptions that the world should run on your own moral model. You overlook the easy stuff.
Even this is a dumb statement, "now is the time for research into potential solutions". Why? And for what purpose?
Let's just get extreme in our hypothetical situations. Let's think about a world where violent videogames are banned. Hmm. Can't say I can see a difference. Not after listening to my new Slipknot or Jay-Z album. And especially not after seeing Natural Born Killers (which you might remember also got similar blame).
It's at this point in what has turned into a sarcastic rant (work be damned) that I defer to Sean Baby, whose way better at the sarcasm than me.
"Murderers get their inspiration from all kinds of places, thanks in part to their own personal insanities. But no one filed a lawsuit against Son of Sam's talking dog, which would only be slightly more ridiculous than this Columbine lawsuit shit. Actually, this current one might be a little bit crazier since a talking dog is normal, but a talking video game is like CU-K
Essentially you're right. I read the IGN article about Manhunt and thought two things: first, you'd have to be a psychopath to feel like you could derive true pleasure from playing the game and two, I bet it's fscking brilliant. But let's be honest. This game is for people who have parties to watch "Faces of Death". I'm sure that it's of the highest quality though, I mean, once you buy into the whole death-with-glee thing.
However, I'm actually cool with a game like this out in the public arena. Violent warlike games do for game technology what porn has done for video technology. It's pushes the limits. And this is a good thing because it breeds things like the mod scenes for Half-Life and UT2003 among others. And I know there are people at universities right now who are working on mods of UT2003 to bring new gameplay types to the table for educationally minded purposes.
It's not that far removed from how WWII advanced aviation. We wouldn't air travel available to us in its form today had it not been for technological advances made during war time. Similarly, we won't have the diverse range of gaming options available to us in the future without growing technology through what is essentially simulated war.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm just pointing out the silver lining in the blood-drenched clouds.
It seems to me that the question is one of how to tell a story. If you notice, Nazis are a common bad guy. They've earned that title. WWII was pretty clear. The Axis powers were the bad guys. So it's safe in a political sense to use Nazis as cannon fodder.
Vietnam wasn't nearly as black and white. Moral clarity is absent from that conflict. So playing as the righteous American fighter has the distinct possibility of pissing off a lot of people. Which I think is a fine thing to do from time to time, but when trying to make a product that's going to appeal to a massive part of the gaming populace, there has to be NO question in the motives of the main character. Not unless you're interested in raking in the dough like Gigli.
Sure, you can play a hitman in the Hitman series and nobody cares. But basing a game on a controversial subject does nothing but invite controversy.
I'm guessing that this is a constant problem in storytelling. Nobody wants to be portrayed as the bad guy. We know Nazis are okay to rag on. The Russians are still okay but they were more devilishly portrayed during the Cold War. The Gulf War and the Gulf War Strikes Back have made it okay to demonize Arabs. But in the 80s, the WWF ran into problems with their character The Iron Sheik. So it hasn't always been okay to make Arabs the bad guys. White guys make good bad guys. They run things, so they're used to playing the bad role. Black guys only make good bad guys if they're selling drugs. I could go on, but I think you see my point. In order to be a bad guy, you have to be extinct, a culturally approved negative stereotype or so hated by everybody that it's okay. Of course, if the bad guys and good guys never really existed, then you can damn near get away with anything.
As for your question about why the developers owe anything to the public, they actually don't. But they do want the public to buy their product. As such, it's a good thing to consider the sensitivities of the target audience. Personally, I think most people that buy Vietcong weren't alive when Vietnam was going on and couldn't care less if it's authentic or not. But if I were the developer, I'd have done my research to make sure that's true. Because the worst thing ever would be to develop a great game and then have it not sell because it was based on Vietnam and not on something less controversial.
I get you. You're saying that the rule of thumb is that kids shouldn't apply what they learn in games in the real world. Basically, playing Vice City doesn't mean you can go around stealing cars.
I'm with you there.
I've been spending a lot of time with this topic only because I'm working on a multimedia approach to interdisciplinary learning where video games would serve as a primary learning tool for schools. And to some extent, you're right, there's a bias against video games in the minds of adults who have never really been exposed to a game past thinking that it's a "kids toy". But that's a battle to be fought and a conception to change. There was even a ruling (sorry for the vagueness) where a judge ruled that games weren't speech because they didn't communicate anything. So there are hurdles to overcome. But overcoming them I think is the goal, not not using games as a learning tool.
I'm going to assume that this is an honest question and not a troll.
I don't think parents have a general "don't do anything you see in video games" mentality. If that were the case, then nobody who has played Animal Crossing would be able to write letters, run errands for friends, fish, collect shells, or design clothing (among other things). The continual representation of video games as a villian by the media happens by in large only when there is an activity to link it to (even though it's unlikely that a direct connection can be made). There are also other items like Sunday's CNN article discussing gamers as well adjusted people rise to the surface.
The truth is that people do learn from games. Just the fact that they make education titles proves this. It's fair to assume that playing America's Army will teach at least some sembalance of Army tactics. That's even one of the goals of the Army when they designed the game. It is up to a person and the influences he/she entertains to keep from using that knowledge to rampage through their own school.
For the best explaination of this I can think of, see this classic Sean Baby rant on the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no genius and I don't have all the answers but I'll at least take a crack at it. Fundamentally, it comes down to trust. Who do you trust and how much and how often? Terrorism is a phantom enemy. You don't know about it until it's too late. The building is reduced to rubble, the hostage is already a hostage, etc. Is it acceptable to record the conversations and the comings and goings of everybody in Athens because of the fear of terrorism? And for the majority of us (I dare say) on Slashdot I'd bet that we believe that it's not a stretch to say that this tech is or will be soon used by other law enforcement agencies for their own purposes. I don't even dare to respond to anything past your first paragraph - it begs arguing situations instead of policy ideals - so don't take it as a slight that I didn't rejoin that topic. That's a discussion without an ending.
Instead of trying to draw larger truths, lemme just offer you my opinions. I don't trust my government. Bush, Chaney, Rice, Powell, Wolfie, and the rest are all on my shit list. I want them or their subordinates knowing my business like I want a baton shoved up my ass. We're talking about the Olympics but I have no problems believing that the current US administration is just salivating at being able to get their hands on that tech, if they haven't already.
My government lies to me. In fact, short of defectors like Richard Clarke, et al, it seems incapable of admitting a wrong. So if you're asking me, when is surveillance acceptable, my answer is NEVER.
Now, label me a member of the tin foil hat brigade if you wanna, but I'm not stupid either. I see the cameras at intersections. I know that a camera is on me when I walk into most stores. I get it - privacy is under a never ending string of attacks. That doesn't mean I'm happy with it.
From where I'm sitting - and on 9/11 I was very close to the WTC - I'd rather have privacy than safety. The potential for abuse is too large without honest public dialogue about how surveillance will be conducted and what limitations will be put on it.
I know you don't want to hear the Ben Franklin quote - but there's truth in it. If you want safety, there are only two ways to guarantee it - go someplace very very far away from everything else, or be monitored constantly. Everything else is a security threat. In the interest of knowing what I'm talking about, I'm reading 1984 right now. Even Winston and Julia knew that if you played right in front of the cameras, you could manage a secluded meeting now and again. Therefore, there is no safety, only the illusion of safety.
You could install cameras in every corner of the world but people would still die.
The fundamental problem with surveillance is that it takes its cue from the military. The military ethos, as espoused by our administration, is pre-emptive strike. That means force. We will win through force, invasive force, whether it's a bullet in the abdomen or a camera recording conversations.
Why not try the method known as 'dialogue'? I realize that dialogue involves honest intentions from all dialoguing parties - but ultimately it's the only solution. Otherwise, we'll blow some shit up, then they'll kill some people or blow some shit up and that cycle will continue. In matters of domestic security (as well as event security like the Olympics) it will only get more invasive. Those that are deemed dangerous according to some unknown algorithm will be dealt with - vaporized was the word used in 1984. It's not going to work.
So my answer - if it makes you feel better to see a rent a cop at your grocery store after 11pm. If it makes you feel safer to know that somebody or some camera is watching your every motion in public places - I'm glad. But it's not security, it's just an illusion. The solution to terror is to eliminate the reasons why terror exists. But we're not serious enough about solving the problem to contemplate that solution. At the moment, anybody who consider
oh, no... wait... we heard you... nevermind.
No one ever expects the Cassini spacecraft!
I don't think your comparison is a good one. My father is a record producer (mostly jazz and blues like Etta James, Pat Matheny, Jim Hall, Chet Baker, etc.) and I'm here to tell you, the sequence of an album is crucial to an album. Maybe it's not that way for your run of the mill one hit wonder, but the placement of a song in an album can make a huge contribution.
I'll give you one quick example. On Etta's album 'Matriarch of the Blues' she sang the Elvis tune 'Hound Dog'. When I first heard this album (which my Dad didn't produce, btw) before it was mastered, the song was the last one on the album. When you finally got to it after hearing everything else, it seemed tacky, tacked on, completely out of character and unnecessary. I was asked to do a sequence for the album. In my sequence I had 'Hound Dog' as the second song on the album. It flowed much much better here and coming after the first tune on the album actually made some sense. As a listener it went from a selection that seemed unnecessary to one that made sense.
Your particular comparison to having to read the back catalog of an author to fully enjoy the newest work is more aptly compared with the idea that to understand Etta's newest record you have to be up to date on her catalog, and you're right, that's simply not true.
Let me give you one more example of why sequencing is important. On a typical blues album there are a few shuffles, a few slow tunes, a few up tempo tunes and hopefully an obvious single. It's common practice to put the first single in the first three songs on the album. Many people believe that it should go first. Why? Because that's why you bought the CD. After that you want to spread out your songs. You don't want two shuffles back to back or an extended lull in the middle of the album with 3 ballads back to back to back. It's also worth considering the key of the song in addition to the tempo. Several songs in a row in the same key can be a real annoying. It gets repetitive as hell.
All of this only applies really when you listen to an album from beginning to end. If you skip around, then you're making your own sequence.
Try the sequence thing for yourself. Make your own mix CD with songs you like. Then try arranging the songs into different combinations. Notice how lead outs and lead ins can make a big difference. Notice the difference between songs with dramatically different tempos being placed beside each other and a sequence where the tempos build or fall gradually as the mix progresses.
Believe it or not, a lot of thought goes into sequencing an album. Not everybody is good at it, but when the right songs are arranged in the right mix, the album trancends the individual songs. Witness the White Album or The Wall as two classic examples.
Cheers.
News of the Harvard study which seemed to rule out piracy as a economic factor was carried earlier on Slashdot, but even the NY Times picked it up.
as to why they didn't take a more high tech route...
from the article:
"Garo gets to say, "I told you so" to those who said it couldn't be done."
Seriously. If you look back, every war to this date can be traced back to some form of colonization or another.
That's not true. Economics dictates war, not simple colonization. It's true that colonization is a form of economic expansion, but it by no means is it the sole reason for war. For a good overview of why people do what they do, check out the highly respected book Cows, Pigs, Wars, & Witches: The Riddles of Culture.
In particular, you might be interested in the chapter titled Primitive War.
"History books brim with details of wars in which the combatants struggled for mastery over trade routes, natural resources, cheap labor, or mass markets." - p. 51
In order for a consumer to exist, a market with sellers already in the market also needs to exist. I think that quote was intended to mean that media companies will feel comfortable about creating the market when they feel that their IP is safe.
Now, needless to say that the market already exists, and flourishes in the ways we're all familiar with. That they don't recognize that is the fault of their own hubris. The works (songs, movies, etc.) are obviously already available online for phree. But it's true, until DRM is figured out, you won't be able to pay them for the privilege of (what I consider to be with DRM) a defective product.
If you'll RTFA (ahem) you'll see that the book really refers to gender inclusive games, not 'girl games'. The question you ask is one the book attempts to answer with a remedy.
point of clarification...
ASCAP and BMI (and SESAC which you didn't mention) represent music publishers, so it's inaccurate to suggest that those organizations would reap huge rewards from DRM.
Personally, the more I think about it, the more I like the Neversoft guy's idea of a blog style review.
Let's face it, we don't really know much about a game review past what it says. We don't know the conditions under which the game was played. We don't know if it was a preview build that the reviewer played in a warehouse for 20 minutes somewhere or if he got to spend the 80+ hours it takes to go through some of the longer RPGs. And isn't that important?
The obvious difference between a game and a movie also comes into play. Go see a movie and you've seen it. You're in and out in 90 minutes and you've had the complete experience. But with a game, it's a much more personal experience. Either you reduce the game to its mechanics (which plays into the stereotypes that the gaming industry claims they want to get away from) and speak of it in those terms, which ISN'T THE POINT of why people play games, or, the reviewer can talk about his own experience.
When you try to boil games down to their mechanics you end up with dumb ass statements like "In the end, ESPN NFL Football is truly the best playing football game available for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox." Why is that a dumb statement? To put it in context, he parsed that sentence to allow that Madden could really be the better game.
Well, lemme ask you a question. Would you rather play the most fun game or the better game? And how is a less fun game actually better? Do we get the answers? Nope. But with blogs we could. Matter of fact, lemme quote again from the same GameSpot review. "If you're on the fence, trying out both games is really the only way to know for sure..." I have an idea, why don't you do that, write about it, and let me know. Because right now, you're just undercutting the rest of your review.
I'd trust something Gabe or Tycho recommended before I'd trust anybody at IGN or GameSpot. And I have to think that it's because they've basically blogged their way into having an opinion that I know I can trust to be consistent.
If I knew the personalities of the GameSpot crew with the same clarity that I feel I do of the PA guys, then YES I WOULD want to hear how the game made them feel. After all, the point of a game is how it makes you feel, not how technically advanced (or not) it is. Besides, I think that info can also be covered in a blog style. Am I alone here?
Just to reply to #2, and I'd be curious to know what you think of this theory.
You want to know why Neo's powers work outside of the Matrix. Easy. He's part machine, part human, totally self-actualized. That's right, he's part machine. He's in the center of the venn diagram comprising humans and machines. Think about it, this is just logic. Sentient machines. How in the hell could they ever be sentient? The answers are in the Animatrix. Humans made machines. Humans gave machines AI. Humans were cruel to machines when machines achieved a level of AI that made them sentient because the machines asked for equality. A war broke out and eventually the machines subjugated humanity and imprisoned them, simultaneously holding them captive and using them as batteries to power their own prison: The Matrix. The Matrix was designed by the machines, which while growing their own AI now began with code made by humans. Humanity is flawed and by association, so are the machines. However, humanity compensates for the flaw by being able to think creatively. Machines cannot. Since computer programs are dictated on logic, the Architect, a machine, designed the Matrix to be a perfectly balanced equation. But he hasn't gotten it right in six tries. Eventually, his program spits out a remainder in his equation. This remainder, The One, is human, and the anomoly defines The One as having the capability to break the computer program. Why? Because he's the imperfection in an otherwise perfect equation. He is able to affect the program because he wields the power of balance, the most imporant power of all, as the system is predicated on balance.
Now, in order to understand why his powers affect machines outside of The Matrix, one only need to connect the dots. The Matrix was made by a machine that is sentient because of an artifical intelligence program. The Matrix was flawed, even in spite of the machine's best attempt to solve the problem. This would indicate a flaw in the master AI. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The program that makes machines sentient is shared among all machines, and at least part of it is predicated on flawed human code. So the inherent problem with The Matrix also afflicts all machines since it's all part of the same logic structure.
Final question to deal with - why does his power grow over time? The answer to that is easy: faith. Revolutions ends with the Oracle espousing her faith in Neo ("Did you know it would turn out like this?" "No, but I believed"). All throughout the 3rd movie they were coming back to beliefs and faith. The Oracle remarks to Neo about the first time she met him that he was "jittery as a june bug and now look at you..." and how he's grown into his role as The One. His powers grew as his belief grew.
I know that's not quite the 802.11b inner ear antenna you were hoping for, but don't you think the logic follows? Furthermore, I would take issue with your statement of this debate being indicative of bad movie design. It's indicative of GOOD movie design. It's movies you don't give a shit about that you don't speak about. An example of bad movie design would be the way Zion was poorly introduced to the viewer. It lessened the emotional impact in the 3rd movie because we spent a lot of time protecting people we didn't have any real connection to. People debating why events happened just illustrates that the movies allow for multiple interpretations. It's a feature, not a bug.
wish I had mod points... good points, all..
Just for the hell of it, I wanna tell you that the most fun I've ever had with the series was with the demo for the first game on the Dreamcast. Me and a friend took turns competiting to see how high we could score after we got all 5 tapes before time ran out.
:)
The particular way we played the demo forced you to be a good trickster but also efficient in which lines you ran to hit the boxes, get S-K-A-T-E, etc. The benefit the demo had over the real game was the ability to redo that level from the beginning over and over...
One question about the online thing. Do you (or Neversoft) think that the backlash from non-Live subscribers who are Xbox owners and want to play games online but won't subscribe to Live is great enough to deprive everybody even the opportunity to play the game online (without going out and buying a ps2)?
Maybe I'm not around enough cynical gamers, but I haven't heard anybody say "so and so put their games on Live? What assholes!" By the same token, I've heard plenty of people say "EA wouldn't put Madden on Live? What assholes!", for example. So why go antagonizing the vocal hardcore userbase when it's obvious that nobody from the other side would have said anything?
I dunno. I personally think that it was probably done for business reasons. I work in the music industry, and you know how logical our own decision making process can be. So it wouldn't surprise me if some of the same kind of wonky thinking went on somewhere down the line.
And one more story, since I'm telling stories. That same friend I played the Tony Hawk demo with now has a 5 year old son who loves playing THPS 2 & 3. He's consistently pulling 100,000+ in The Hanger on 2. Not bad for being five.
I'm looking forward to showing him THUG this weekend.
Swink,
A few thoughts from a long time fan of the series, owner of the game (picked it up last night) and current frustrated customer with the Activision server that's currently tanking and breaking the "your face in the game" feature.
First, I picked it up for the ps2 but I own all 3 next-gen systems. I hear ya on your reasoning not to be Live compatible but as a gamer, I have just one response: I'm already paying for Live. If the choice is between no online play or subscribing to Live, consider myself subscribed. If it's signing up to Live AND to some Tony Hawk service, that'd be too much. For example, I own several versions of Phantasy Star Online for the DreamCast, Gamecube, etc. I haven't and won't pay to play it online. I've taken their freebie month but that's it. The cost of Live, I've gotten over. I've made that plunge. So from my perspective, Neversoft is really more concerned with your second reason for not releasing a Live enabled version. I'm cool with that, just don't pretend to be protecting me. I don't feel protected. But wanting to protect the brand or whatever, I get.
As for game reviews, I tend to agree with you. I thought about what a douche bag the IGN reviewer was for saying that the running aspect was hard to control. He must not have read the hint on screen or the hint in the manual that the d-pad makes dude walk and the right analog stick makes dude run. What a douche. So we know that his review is *total* bullshit.
My solution for reviewers would be for them to admit how much they played the game. I've had many experiences in the franchise modes of various current football titles that revealed to me problems or bugs that no reviewer mentioned. But you'd have to be fairly deep in a season to find them. So, boom, right up front. Time spent playing: 5 hours. Highest level achieved: Manhattan. That's all it'd take.
I don't imagine that people really think every reviewer finishes every game. So finishing a game obviously isn't a requirement for reviewing a game. As such, it shouldn't be embarrassing to say how much time went into the source material they're reviewing. In the absence of it, we're left to believe that the guy at IGN really is a douche bag and isn't just spending 10 minutes with a preview copy.
My quick thoughts on the game: THPS2x was probably the high water mark for the series in my mind. This is the best game in the series since that one. It might change again as I play more, but right now, I see it as being more fun than 3 and 4. And being able to run around has totally opened up the game.
So the ends justify the means, is that it? You scare me.
Your question, I believe, has this at its root "shouldn't we let the free market decide what's best for itself"? That answer is no. The free market has no public interest. The only thing it respects is cash. And there are more ways to skin a cat than by giving it what it wants. Look at Enron and Worldcom. Look at the World Bank and IMF have done to 3rd world countries. Bill Moyers had a great report on NOW a week or two ago that's worth seeing regarding those organizations.
The WTO was just voted down by Argentina. So clearly there is cause to believe that letting the biggest check writers run with their imaginations can be harmful. What you're suggesting is that these large corporations, who, by the way, are trying to monopolize the PUBLIC airwaves (on loan from Congress), have a case for making their mouthpieces even bigger.
This strikes me as the same logic that says we should overturn the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform because restricting soft money is akin to trampling on free speech.
Bullshit. The correct answer in both cases is that there needs to be limits on an individual or corporation's power to exert undue influence on the populace. What that means is nobody can be the sole voice of information in town by owning the major methods of media consumption (TV, radio, newspaper, Internet access) and it means that just because somebody has buckets of money that doesn't allow them to gain more of a say in who should be elected than say, yourself.
I don't want to turn to Uncle Sam for everything. I'm not suggesting anything radical. But I do think that it's in the interest of everybody to make sure that power and influence are not limited to a few corporations and people like George Soros who have the money to do whatever they want. (And I admire him. I threw him in just to make the point that I'm not engaging in partisan bickering. I think there is a larger moral point here.)
Overturning the FCC Regs was the right thing to do.
And just to address your point head on, nobody is trying to dictate what these channels put on air. The main point of the new regs was to expand the percent of media in a market that one company could own.
"That's only my opinion without any facts."
And this was modded +5 Insightful... lol
I kid.
Seriously, with the RIAA taking $2,000, that has to mean something. Either it means that they don't think handing a $2,000 fine to a low income single parent family for the actions of a 12 year old about a non-obvious point of law to the majority of Americans isn't going to generate much bad publicity for them (or not as much as it would have otherwise), or it means that they've just released a negotiating price.
The day Madden 2004 came out there was much rejoicing and bouquets of flowers were thrown at the game from every reviewer possible.
The day NFL ESPN Football came out... nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The next day, crickets. The next day, I already had the game and made a post on the IGN.com board about it. As far as I know, that was one of the first reviews (albeit on a message board) of the game on the Net. Finally, that night GameSpot posted their review. The next day, IGN.com had theirs. In previous years, the reviewers didn't have a problem calling one game better than the other. Now they couch their opinions in double speak. GameSpot ends their review by saying "ESPN NFL Football is truly the best playing football game available for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox". Why qualify? Does Madden or Gameday work better as a coaster or something?
Meanwhile, while waiting on the reviews, I was treated to some nice advertisements on both IGN and Gamespot from Madden. The ads were all about how Madden was #1.
Personally, I do think that there was some dealing going on behind the scenes by EA. I think EA has been trying to undermine the marketing efforts of Sega. And in business, I guess there ain't nothing wrong with that. But it's still unsavory. I can nitpick on ESPN NFL Football and I can nitpick on Madden 2004. I've got dozens of hours invested in both titles. But one thing is clear to me, ESPN NFL Football is the most complete package.
EA climbing in ESPN's lap should be taken as a slap in the face by Sega. It should also show (along with the fact that the websites to support ESPN NFL Football were down even a few days after the game came out) that Sega is hopelessly outmatched and outgunned by EA's marketing dept.
Which is a damn shame because they have the better game.
Wow. That's some of the most intersting stuff I've read recently. I'm serious. That's great info to know. The groups and how they respond to the games seem like a good starting point if one wanted to conduct a serious long term study of how violence in games affects a player. I can think of two more critical areas of study very easily. Look at how gamers who prefer to play alone respond to a violent game versus gamers who like to play in clans or on teams, what have you.
It would also be interesting to track gamers over a long period of time. I believe I read something about a study that was supposedly being done in Japan that addresses this issue, but I don't know much about it.
However, that being said, it also sounds like an impossible study. How can you isolate gaming from the rest of society and culture? I don't have an answer for that.
You said "I believe that there is a relationship between violent games and the violent actions", and I would agree with you. It's just common sense to think that you are what you spend your time on. This pretty much sums up my Mom's thoughts on the deal. I grew up in a pretty conservative home, and the Bible is pretty clear about guarding what you see, hear, and let into your heart. But that does seem to simplify the issue a bit too much. We aren't just the sum of our own experiences. Experience counts, but it's not the most important factor when determining patterns of behavior.
Games are immersive entertainment. That's the revolutionary thing about them. That's why I think we can teach and educate with games. The Army must agree, what with making "America's Army" for recruiting purposes.
But let's agree that gamers come to the controller already full of baggage. Even young kids already have a lifetime of experiences upon which to use to put the game in proper context. It's this context, or the lackthereof, that is the determines how a gamer responds to a given game.
While playing "Vice City", and I know I'm not alone here, one night I was in Blockbuster. When I left, some lady had left her car running on the curb so she could drop off some videos in the drop box. I instinctively thought that it would be possible for me to steal the car. I didn't do it. But it crossed my mind. I didn't even think about it seriously. But it crossed my mind. Does that prove anything?
Yep. It proves that I had gotten pretty immersed in playing "Vice City". So much so that my brain was trying to apply game principles to non-simulated events. Why wouldn't it? It's in the definition of the word 'immersion'. But that doesn't mean that I'll ever steal a car. If I did nothing but read books on how to steal cars from here until eternity, I honestly don't think I'd steal a car. I would for sure think about how easy it is. I could learn all the ways to do it. But when push comes to shove - it's not in me. I bet the majority of people are the same way. Back in the day, instead of stealing cars, it was knocking blocks apart to find the mushroom. My brain responded the same. The difference is the game I was immersed in.
It also proves that the environment I grew up in gave me enough basic respect for people that I'm not going to jack somebody given the chance.
The problem is, some people are damaged goods. They're predisposed to violence. I would imagine that the guy who got angry when you asked him to stop playing and never filled out an exit survey is one of these people. Some of them were friends of mine when I was in school. My (one time) best friend called in a bomb threat to my junior high school while we were both going there (this was 15 years ago). We hung out all the time. But I would never think of doing what he did. He was crazy when I met him. He'd be crazy with or without television, books, movies, games, etc.
The problem is, there are lots of places to go to get your violence on in America. So why single out games? It just doesn't make sense.
I'm something of a re
Sorry about the lack of formatting in the previous post... I guess that kinda steals the thunder from the argument, huh?
Dammit. Well, here it is formatted this time.
I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better.
It's either that, which I think it a common problem, or, you think that morality should be legislated.
If you want to legislate morality, just stop reading this now. We're not going to see eye to eye on this topic. But if you're interested in gaming and hope to see the flourishing of new and innovative gametypes, then by all means man, get off your high horse and grab a controller!
I'll make this quick because I'm at work and don't have the time to haul out the soapbox.
The case can be made (I've made it previously here) that violence is a necessary evil in developing technology. Just look at the airplane. I don't have data for this claim, but I would imagine that technology in health care has seen great leaps largely due to war. Games are the same way, we get the good tech by programming the easy (and desirable) interaction: killing. As people, we like it. We're good at it. So there should be no confusion as to why people are drawn to it.
You know that this evolution is working because there are so many titles out there that are not "murder simulators" as people like yourself, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity like to call them. Of course, Nintendo has been a major player in developing these non-violent AAA titles. (And when I say non-violent, I don't mean devoid of violence, I mean violence isn't the primary gameplay mechanic.) But they're not the only ones.
You think the answer is to have a government subsidy for game developers who don't include guns in their games. Do movies, books, magazines, TV shows, and real people all get breaks too for the same reason? And where do we draw the line? Can I made a violent piece of entertainment media about a historical act? What about that Mel Gibson movie? Does he need to wipe some of that blood off of Jesus? Speaking of The Passion, the same kind of thought that causes somebody to label a game as a "murder simulator" is also the same kind of thought that makes people think that The Passion is about the Jews killing Jesus.
Hello! Anybody in there? Quick, what's 2+2?
Did you know that they took the games out of that Wal-Mart in West Virginia BUT LEFT THE GUNS? This is what happens when you draw irrational conclusions based on your own assumptions that the world should run on your own moral model. You overlook the easy stuff.
Even this is a dumb statement, "now is the time for research into potential solutions". Why? And for what purpose?
Let's just get extreme in our hypothetical situations. Let's think about a world where violent videogames are banned. Hmm. Can't say I can see a difference. Not after listening to my new Slipknot or Jay-Z album. And especially not after seeing Natural Born Killers (which you might remember also got similar blame).
It's at this point in what has turned into a sarcastic rant (work be damned) that I defer to Sean Baby, whose way better at the sarcasm than me.
"Murderers get their inspiration from all kinds of places, thanks in part to their own personal insanities. But no one filed a lawsu
I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better. It's either that, which I think it a common problem, or, you think that morality should be legislated. If you want to legislate morality, just stop reading this now. We're not going to see eye to eye on this topic. But if you're interested in gaming and hope to see the flourishing of new and innovative gametypes, then by all means man, get off your high horse and grab a controller! I'll make this quick because I'm at work and don't have the time to haul out the soapbox. The case can be made (I've made it previously here) that violence is a necessary evil in developing technology. Just look at the airplane. I don't have data for this claim, but I would imagine that technology in health care has seen great leaps largely due to war. Games are the same way, we get the good tech by programming the easy (and desirable) interaction: killing. As people, we like it. We're good at it. So there should be no confusion as to why people are drawn to it. You know that this evolution is working because there are so many titles out there that are not "murder simulators" as people like yourself, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity like to call them. Of course, Nintendo has been a major player in developing these non-violent AAA titles. (And when I say non-violent, I don't mean devoid of violence, I mean violence isn't the primary gameplay mechanic.) But they're not the only ones. You think the answer is to have a government subsidy for game developers who don't include guns in their games. Do movies, books, magazines, TV shows, and real people all get breaks too for the same reason? And where do we draw the line? Can I made a violent piece of entertainment media about a historical act? What about that Mel Gibson movie? Does he need to wipe some of that blood off of Jesus? Speaking of The Passion, the same kind of thought that causes somebody to label a game as a "murder simulator" is also the same kind of thought that makes people think that The Passion is about the Jews killing Jesus. Hello! Anybody in there? Quick, what's 2+2? Did you know that they took the games out of that Wal-Mart in West Virginia BUT LEFT THE GUNS? This is what happens when you draw irrational conclusions based on your own assumptions that the world should run on your own moral model. You overlook the easy stuff. Even this is a dumb statement, "now is the time for research into potential solutions". Why? And for what purpose? Let's just get extreme in our hypothetical situations. Let's think about a world where violent videogames are banned. Hmm. Can't say I can see a difference. Not after listening to my new Slipknot or Jay-Z album. And especially not after seeing Natural Born Killers (which you might remember also got similar blame). It's at this point in what has turned into a sarcastic rant (work be damned) that I defer to Sean Baby, whose way better at the sarcasm than me. "Murderers get their inspiration from all kinds of places, thanks in part to their own personal insanities. But no one filed a lawsuit against Son of Sam's talking dog, which would only be slightly more ridiculous than this Columbine lawsuit shit. Actually, this current one might be a little bit crazier since a talking dog is normal, but a talking video game is like CU-K
Essentially you're right. I read the IGN article about Manhunt and thought two things: first, you'd have to be a psychopath to feel like you could derive true pleasure from playing the game and two, I bet it's fscking brilliant. But let's be honest. This game is for people who have parties to watch "Faces of Death". I'm sure that it's of the highest quality though, I mean, once you buy into the whole death-with-glee thing.
However, I'm actually cool with a game like this out in the public arena. Violent warlike games do for game technology what porn has done for video technology. It's pushes the limits. And this is a good thing because it breeds things like the mod scenes for Half-Life and UT2003 among others. And I know there are people at universities right now who are working on mods of UT2003 to bring new gameplay types to the table for educationally minded purposes.
It's not that far removed from how WWII advanced aviation. We wouldn't air travel available to us in its form today had it not been for technological advances made during war time. Similarly, we won't have the diverse range of gaming options available to us in the future without growing technology through what is essentially simulated war.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm just pointing out the silver lining in the blood-drenched clouds.
It seems to me that the question is one of how to tell a story. If you notice, Nazis are a common bad guy. They've earned that title. WWII was pretty clear. The Axis powers were the bad guys. So it's safe in a political sense to use Nazis as cannon fodder.
Vietnam wasn't nearly as black and white. Moral clarity is absent from that conflict. So playing as the righteous American fighter has the distinct possibility of pissing off a lot of people. Which I think is a fine thing to do from time to time, but when trying to make a product that's going to appeal to a massive part of the gaming populace, there has to be NO question in the motives of the main character. Not unless you're interested in raking in the dough like Gigli.
Sure, you can play a hitman in the Hitman series and nobody cares. But basing a game on a controversial subject does nothing but invite controversy.
I'm guessing that this is a constant problem in storytelling. Nobody wants to be portrayed as the bad guy. We know Nazis are okay to rag on. The Russians are still okay but they were more devilishly portrayed during the Cold War. The Gulf War and the Gulf War Strikes Back have made it okay to demonize Arabs. But in the 80s, the WWF ran into problems with their character The Iron Sheik. So it hasn't always been okay to make Arabs the bad guys. White guys make good bad guys. They run things, so they're used to playing the bad role. Black guys only make good bad guys if they're selling drugs. I could go on, but I think you see my point. In order to be a bad guy, you have to be extinct, a culturally approved negative stereotype or so hated by everybody that it's okay. Of course, if the bad guys and good guys never really existed, then you can damn near get away with anything.
As for your question about why the developers owe anything to the public, they actually don't. But they do want the public to buy their product. As such, it's a good thing to consider the sensitivities of the target audience. Personally, I think most people that buy Vietcong weren't alive when Vietnam was going on and couldn't care less if it's authentic or not. But if I were the developer, I'd have done my research to make sure that's true. Because the worst thing ever would be to develop a great game and then have it not sell because it was based on Vietnam and not on something less controversial.
I get you. You're saying that the rule of thumb is that kids shouldn't apply what they learn in games in the real world. Basically, playing Vice City doesn't mean you can go around stealing cars.
I'm with you there.
I've been spending a lot of time with this topic only because I'm working on a multimedia approach to interdisciplinary learning where video games would serve as a primary learning tool for schools. And to some extent, you're right, there's a bias against video games in the minds of adults who have never really been exposed to a game past thinking that it's a "kids toy". But that's a battle to be fought and a conception to change. There was even a ruling (sorry for the vagueness) where a judge ruled that games weren't speech because they didn't communicate anything. So there are hurdles to overcome. But overcoming them I think is the goal, not not using games as a learning tool.
I'm going to assume that this is an honest question and not a troll.
I don't think parents have a general "don't do anything you see in video games" mentality. If that were the case, then nobody who has played Animal Crossing would be able to write letters, run errands for friends, fish, collect shells, or design clothing (among other things). The continual representation of video games as a villian by the media happens by in large only when there is an activity to link it to (even though it's unlikely that a direct connection can be made). There are also other items like Sunday's CNN article discussing gamers as well adjusted people rise to the surface.
The truth is that people do learn from games. Just the fact that they make education titles proves this. It's fair to assume that playing America's Army will teach at least some sembalance of Army tactics. That's even one of the goals of the Army when they designed the game. It is up to a person and the influences he/she entertains to keep from using that knowledge to rampage through their own school.
For the best explaination of this I can think of, see this classic Sean Baby rant on the topic.