It tells you that you will never change anybodies mind on this matter no matter what statistics you brought up... there will always be people against fun, and there will always people doing the fun.
VR... hrmmm imagine what will happen in 50 years! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
Maybe our future is to be brains in some jar plugged into some Machine <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also, how hard would it be to tell if your in VR or not? Hrmm, i just took the goggles off and am now walking outside la la la la la BAM kill people <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> wont happen.
However, i do see a problem with VR games. Right now they say Video games are turning our kids into KILLAZ!!!! OMG NOOOOO.... Wait a second, i am not stupid and i realise that using a mouse and keyboard and using a gun are two different things! But what happens when you are using a virtual representation of a weapon? Then you would actually be holding a weapon, having to physicly load it, maintain it, know how it operates... then i would be worried (even then, who cares?)
I'm not at all afraid of some CS lamer bursting into my house and killing me with a USP. I'm really not. I know that everyone who plays those games knows the boundries between real life and the virtual.
The question, however, is if the effects of those advances are right or wrong. If what they do to people is right or wrong.
Lets create a nice little hypothetical, shall we? My ex-girlfriend lives right down the street from me, a nice little 300 foot stroll. We get along pretty well, but at times, she says something that makes me a little upset. Assume that I have the ability to re-create our neighborhood, model (let's call her Jane) in game, and do whatever I want in the virtual world. One night, I get a little bit angry at her, so I go home, fire up the VR sim, and make my in-sim avatar walk over to her house, knock on her door, shoot her dad, mom, and dog with 12-gauge shotgun shells, then walk upstairs and rape her until morning. Nobody is hurt the next morning, right? Nothing done?
How would you think Jane would feel about that? How do you think she would feel, seeing a photorealistic rendering of her throat cut, her body ravaged, lying on the floor of her room dying
I can bet she won't be happy with that.
The danger of virtual crime, or rape-sims, or what have you, by itself, is not society's problem. The problem comes when I, the user of said devices, become so utterly corrupt in my thought-life, that I don't give a damn about morals anymore. So what if I think about raping her? So what if I fantisize about it, it never hurts anyone, does it?
The fact is though, it does hurt someone. It hurts me. Everytime I look at her, I'm not going to see a smiling, beautiful woman, I'm going to see a raped carcass lying on the floor of her virtual room. And over time, I'll start to like it. Why shouldn't I? Every time I see it, I get pleasure, it's only natural that become the conditioned response to that mental imagery. Even if I never, ever act on those perversions, never go to jail for it, never find out, that corruption and debauchery of my mind is going to poison me for the rest of my life. I will NEVER be able to look at a girl the same way again.
Think I'm kidding you, being over-dramatic about it?
Try not fantisizing, not lusting, not looking at porn, not checking out girls for a month. No masturbation, no nothing. See how your attitude towards women changes. suddenly, it become easyer to keep your eyes off their chests while you talk to them, easyer to look them right in the eye, and easyer to see where they are coming from, because you no longer see a piece of meat, every time you look at a woman, you will see an actual human being.
I'm fairly convinced that's why Jesus said "He who lusts has already committed adultry in his heart." Even if you only accept him as a moral teacher, see where he is coming from. What goes on in our mind will, ultimately, present itself in our behavior.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Nov 25 2003, 09:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Nov 25 2003, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not at all afraid of some CS lamer bursting into my house and killing me with a USP. I'm really not. I know that everyone who plays those games knows the boundries between real life and the virtual.
The question, however, is if the effects of those advances are right or wrong. If what they do to people is right or wrong.
Lets create a nice little hypothetical, shall we? My ex-girlfriend lives right down the street from me, a nice little 300 foot stroll. We get along pretty well, but at times, she says something that makes me a little upset. Assume that I have the ability to re-create our neighborhood, model (let's call her Jane) in game, and do whatever I want in the virtual world. One night, I get a little bit angry at her, so I go home, fire up the VR sim, and make my in-sim avatar walk over to her house, knock on her door, shoot her dad, mom, and dog with 12-gauge shotgun shells, then walk upstairs and rape her until morning. Nobody is hurt the next morning, right? Nothing done?
How would you think Jane would feel about that? How do you think she would feel, seeing a photorealistic rendering of her throat cut, her body ravaged, lying on the floor of her room dying
I can bet she won't be happy with that.
The danger of virtual crime, or rape-sims, or what have you, by itself, is not society's problem. The problem comes when I, the user of said devices, become so utterly corrupt in my thought-life, that I don't give a damn about morals anymore. So what if I think about raping her? So what if I fantisize about it, it never hurts anyone, does it?
The fact is though, it does hurt someone. It hurts me. Everytime I look at her, I'm not going to see a smiling, beautiful woman, I'm going to see a raped carcass lying on the floor of her virtual room. And over time, I'll start to like it. Why shouldn't I? Every time I see it, I get pleasure, it's only natural that become the conditioned response to that mental imagery. Even if I never, ever act on those perversions, never go to jail for it, never find out, that corruption and debauchery of my mind is going to poison me for the rest of my life. I will NEVER be able to look at a girl the same way again.
Think I'm kidding you, being over-dramatic about it?
Try not fantisizing, not lusting, not looking at porn, not checking out girls for a month. No masturbation, no nothing. See how your attitude towards women changes. suddenly, it become easyer to keep your eyes off their chests while you talk to them, easyer to look them right in the eye, and easyer to see where they are coming from, because you no longer see a piece of meat, every time you look at a woman, you will see an actual human being.
I'm fairly convinced that's why Jesus said "He who lusts has already committed adultry in his heart." Even if you only accept him as a moral teacher, see where he is coming from. What goes on in our mind will, ultimately, present itself in our behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You make a good point. As I read the part about your ex, I thought you were going to make the point that this virtual behaviour would be a positive outlet, wich had me worried. Something like that I would liken to a person who makes a shrine of pictures, candles and a lock of hair covered in pigeon blood. Either one is seriously disturbing behaviour and should sound alarms. In any case, even without a twisted shrine or virtual rape...those kinds of fantasies are dangerous. "Mental imagery" generated by your own mind is already extremely vivid, realistic and more convincing to a person than VR could ever become. Anyone who actually has repeat fantasies of such nature is likely a danger with or without games, VR or any other influence. I'd say anything more than a passing daydream is worrysome. Personally my definition of "entertainment" doesnt encompass such behaviour. Its about fun first and foremost.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I read the part about your ex, I thought you were going to make the point that this virtual behaviour would be a positive outlet, wich had me worried.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, making up the example disturbed me enough, I can't imagine doing it on a regular basis.
Yeah, today's video games don't do anything to encourage us to kill. When I play C-strike, it's just putting the crosshairs on the target, clicking, and then swearing because I got hit by an AWPer 1/2way across the map <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
Seriously though, I obviously don't think there is any harm in computer games. It's the mental lusting and coveting over performing rape, murder, and brutal assault that is so dangerous, and unfortunately, that is what these rape simes look to help kindle.
Things don't need to be photo-realistic violent to be entertaining. Look at NS; the blood was added for the sake of allowing aliens to know their attack contacted. Used appropriately, violence lends the game more atmosphere, and I'm fine with that. Heck, given the option to play Metal Slug with or without blood, I choose with, and I'll be damned if any parent tells me THAT game encouages me to become a cold blooded killer. Games right now are generally fine; the models out on the current most realistic games are at best well-painted marionettes.
But when it gets to the point of actually mimicking real life it becomes ad nauseum. Have you ever looked at a half decapitated body in a WWII photo, and thought, "Cool!"? I doubt it; seeing something gibbed in video games is absolutely nothing like how it looks for real. In the movie entertainment, war movies can be very good at portraying realistic violence, and seeing this, we feel a sense of sadness and repulsion, rather than a sense of awe in how glorious the violence shows itself to be, because there's nothing glorious at all about when it is reality. Note that every FPS currently out there, there hasn't been one that's given realistic facial expressions to pain. HL2 may be the first to take closer there, but as of yet, we haven't been directly shown how that will look, (the only people the demos show you face to face killing are combine soldiers, who don't show their faces). Still, HL2 is far from giving a real impression, and I'm thankful for that.
Just like the film invention, computers have influenced and will continue to influence our every-day life. I would assume that computer games will have a simillar history to the movie history in the past... Don't movies influence children similarly to PC games? There are boundaries, which have been created over the years, that help children to grow and not be violent even though there are a lot of violent movies out there. As i see it, people will have to make a choice of whether to play these harmful realistic games or to stay away from them. In respond to the the Legionnaired's example -- The main character in your example made the choice of creating and playing out his fantasies and that has affected him in some way. He didn't have to create the simulation. He didn't have to like the scenario he had created and could have come back to normal life appreciating even more what he had. Morality will change over time; it is impossible to stop it from changing. The only thing that i am affraid of is, that the development of human kind will slow down as TV and PC games have wasted huge amount working time. And it won't get any better with the development of new, improved, games. Ahhhh... we need another "Cold War," or something like it, to make everyone reach for the stars again...
After reading all of these posts, what do I have to say?
It's a good and bad thing, kind of like a double edged blade. On the one side, it's a vent- It gets out frustration, and it's not harmful to other people. But like other people have pointed out so very well, it's also "desensitisizng" - Seeing somone with a big, dirty cut for the first time is normally disgusting. After a while it fades, and in theory this could happen with video games (not now, but if graphic engines ever reach actual photo-realisim). So eventually seeing someone in a totally realistic environment getting their arm ripped off or so becomes normal.
[Edit: The debate. I'm a n00b] It'll never end.
Personally I just think that the media should take a look at this post and hire some people ^_^
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Nov 25 2003, 03:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Nov 25 2003, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Violence in games and hentai "rape simulators" are the most common in Japan yet Japan has an extremely low rape and murder rate. What does that tell you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> isn't that supposed to be only for reported murder and rape? IIRC there's a really complex social issues regarding rape in japanese culture.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Nov 25 2003, 04:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Nov 25 2003, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets create a nice little hypothetical, shall we? My ex-girlfriend lives right down the street from me, a nice little 300 foot stroll. We get along pretty well, but at times, she says something that makes me a little upset. Assume that I have the ability to re-create our neighborhood, model (let's call her Jane) in game, and do whatever I want in the virtual world. One night, I get a little bit angry at her, so I go home, fire up the VR sim, and make my in-sim avatar walk over to her house, knock on her door, shoot her dad, mom, and dog with 12-gauge shotgun shells, then walk upstairs and rape her until morning. Nobody is hurt the next morning, right? Nothing done? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ugh, sorry i feel you're off the mark here.
The VR equpiment doesn't in any way make you want to kill and rape her family. That is your own fantasy, and arguably a very disturbed one. Wether you live out your fantasy in your mind or in a VR simulation, the initial fantasy is your own. A piece of paper and a pencil can be used to write or illustrate a brutal child rape, but paper doesn't create peadophiles.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem comes when I, the user of said devices, become so utterly corrupt in my thought-life, that I don't give a damn about morals anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In otherwords, the problem as you put it is not in the VR's depiction of violence, but in the fact that you are harbouring these thoughts, fantasies and desires in the first place. Which has nothing to do with the realisim of a simulation. Your example is very shocking, but that shock value comes from the brutality of the fantasy, not from the technology used to depict it. Your problem is exactly the same VR machine or no VR machine - Come home from Jane's house fantasising about killing her, imagining it in your head and perhaps playing the scenario out in a diary or on a web site (Sounding anything like a certain incident?). You have exactly the same corruption of mind, because that corruption is evident in the fact that you actually think about doing the act in the first place. A dream or fantasy has no less impact than a portrail of the same act on a screen, infact it probably has more impact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> they rape and murder less than other countries.
that is all you can get from that information. You could try to link it to the fact that they have simulators, but it could be any number of factors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it doesn't suggest that simulators directly reduce the number of rapes and murders - It does suggest that the number of these incidents are not increased by the availability of simulators, or that the effect the availability of simulators has on the number of rapes or murders is not very significant when compared to other factors, for example quality of parenting.
Lies, damned lies and statistics does not invalidate all statistics from a discussion. You just have to take care how you interpret them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But like other people have pointed out so very well, it's also "desensitisizng" - Seeing somone with a big, dirty cut for the first time is normally disgusting. After a while it fades, and in theory this could happen with video games (not now, but if graphic engines ever reach actual photo-realisim). So eventually seeing someone in a totally realistic environment getting their arm ripped off or so becomes normal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, i see no problem with desensitization at all. You can't equate not being shocked at a gory wound to wanting to inflict gory wounds upon people. Emergency room surgeons deal with death, blood and vital organs on a daily basis, this is total desensitization, yet they somehow manage to not go on murderous killing sprees.
Even if I did have those sick fantasies, morality allows them to be squelched before they become a problem.
However, with the advent of realistic VR, it gives a place to act out those sick, disturbed fantasies, to harbor them, and to grow them to such a proportion inside your mind that even though morality may keep you from doing it in real life, you can think of nothing else. You destroy your own life.
<!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Nov 26 2003, 12:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Nov 26 2003, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While it doesn't suggest that simulators directly reduce the number of rapes and murders - It does suggest that the number of these incidents are not increased by the availability of simulators, or that the effect the availability of simulators has on the number of rapes or murders is not very significant when compared to other factors, for example quality of parenting.
Lies, damned lies and statistics does not invalidate all statistics from a discussion. You just have to take care how you interpret them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lies, damned lies and statistics was a quote from Winston Churchill i believe. Doing A level maths and GCSE statistics has shown me one nice bit of information.
<b>You can make statistics say <i>whatever you want</b></i>
For example, in america the numbe of ice creams sold went up at the same time as the number of murders did. Conclusion: Ice cream causes people to murder each other.
See what i mean? Ok, the availability of rape simulators and the number of rapes are slightly more connected than ice cream and murder but the prinicple is the same.
If you can back the statistics up with evidence, such as interviews with people who rape or use the simulators, then the statement has more weight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ....a place to act out those sick, disturbed fantasies, to harbor them..... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean like <b>in your own head</b> as was the point i already made, or in a diary / website / any expressive medium you can possibly think of. I asked how the expression of these fantasies in a computer simulation was profoundly different to the expression of the same fantasies in a dream, or in any other playspace. It is still your fantasy that is the issue.
I don't believe that a computer simulation can cause someone to want to rape and murder a girlfriend's family, and it doesn't sound like you're suggesting that either. So given that this fantasy has arisen independantly of the computer simulation, why would exploring it with a computer simulation corrupt your 'morals' and cause you to act out on the desires, while exploring through a multitude of other means wouldn't?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ..destroy your own life yada yada.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dramatising the violent acts or brutal fantasies doesn't add anything to the argument of wether a simulation can cause someone to act on them or not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can make statistics say whatever you want
For example, in america the numbe of ice creams sold went up at the same time as the number of murders did. Conclusion: Ice cream causes people to murder each other. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good job being completely redundant, i specifically stated that the key is in interpreting them properly. You can make statistics say whatever you want only if you're willing to make a fallical interpretation that defies any reasonable logic. You were correct in pointing out that the Japan stats do not necessarily suggest rapes and murders are prevented by simulators. That in itself however, doesn't not make the statistics irrelevant to this discussion.
But at the same time, far more disgusting things go on in the minds of writers, usualy to a positive end. And the vast majority of readers can take in that experience without being adversly effected. Reading is a far more engulfing experience than any movie or game, and I believe our minds already create a full sensory experience that is a far more convicing "virtual reality" than any machine will ever produce. Anyone who is so consumed by thier disturbing fantasies that they feel <i>any</i> need to act them out are already a danger without anything.
I made the comment to the effect that "anything more than a passing daydream" should ring alarm bells. But as I think about it...I have had consistent "disturbing fantasies", perhaps more acuratly described as a graphic murder scene in a movie. Eventualy Id like to write a book, or a script. I however feel no need to go act this out. Nor do I feel games should fill some kind of "vent" for these tendancies. These people need to be evaluated. I would have to strongly disagree with anyone who says games are a way to vent frustration or an outlet for inapropriate social behaviour. That is what psychologists and are for. Games, movies, books, theatre, Music and TV are about fun and entertainment, that is the only purpose they serve.
I would suffice to say that Morality is as strong as the mind that employs it, in some cases even stronger. If your personal moral code can be so easily disolved through a means of entertainment, problems are much deeper. These people will and always have been a problem for society.
To adress the origional question of this thread...Should there be boundaries? Yes and No, certianly not to the extent that we practice censorship, but yes, the industry will abide by self imposed guidelines as it always has...these boundaries will be set by the scociety they work for. Do you think its any coincidence that only a few games like "Postal" have ever been produced? For one, not many developers even want to make a game like that...Its very likely that almost <i>no</i> publisher would go near it, and there really isnt that great of a consumer market for a game like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--Parasite+Nov 26 2003, 08:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Parasite @ Nov 26 2003, 08:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Do you think its any coincidence that only a few games like "Postal" have ever been produced? For one, not many developers even want to make a game like that...Its very likely that almost <i>no</i> publisher would go near it, and there really isnt that great of a consumer market for a game like that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That leads me onto a tangent, which is the reasons why people play and enjoy particular games. Concerning Postal, if i'm not mistaken - the entirely selling point and purpose is of this game was to be violent and offensive. It had no other substance, it wasn't a terribly entertaining game in its own right, but was simply an excuse to cram as much violent material onto a CD as possible. Now there is a marked difference between this and other games that could be just as violent, but actually have a solid game foundation hidden among the gore.
Picture a version of NS with excessive amounts of blood and realistic violence. That could be comparable to something like SOF2 or other contraversial games. People enjoy this game, but as always, not everyone enjoys it for the same reason. What we get out of a game varies greatly depending on who we are. Using NS as an example, most of the people who would play this game fall somewhere into 2 categories.
- People who enjoy the competitive element of the game, who strive to get better at the game and play it much like a recreational sport. They see the game as a set of rules, and they take enjoyment from this game in the same way you would take enjoyment from playing in a sunday league team or similar. To these people, the excessive violence in my special version of NS is a non-issue as it has no effect on the rules of the game. They probably wont even comment or take notice of it unless it happens to obscure their precise pistol aim in some way.
- People who enjoy the atmosphere, roleplay and story elements of the game. Who picture themselves on a spacestation fighting an alien force, and look for immersion in the game. They take enjoyment from the game much as they would from a book or film. These people would certainly take notice of the extra gore. Depending on how it was done or who you ask, the violence would either enhance or detract from the atmosphere and immersion of the game. The violence in this case serves as a way to create emotions and reactions, much as it would in a film such as saving private ryan. The effect it would have on the viewer would vary from person to person.
The vast majority of game players fall between these 2 categories, some people are a hybrid, in some cases where exactly we fall depends on which game we're playing. More or less all (successful) games appeal to one or both of these groups. And hopefully, you could not say that either of these groups are 'disturbed' in the way they consume their games. It is completely normal to take enjoyment from media in this way, and in the second case where violence is an issue, the way the game is consumed is perfectly mirrored to the way violent film and other media is consumed.
The purpose of the above is to demonstrate the main reasons why we play games. However, the very same games can be enjoyed by some people for entirely different reasons. Going back to our violent NS, it is entirely possible that a person who fantasizes about performing violent acts - Perhaps to enact revenge on classmates for abuse, or wanting to lash out and unleash pent up aggression, would enjoy the violent NS not for the competitive element, not for the atmosphere, but purely for the violence. Someone who gets a kick out of seeing bodyparts fly can play the same game as all of us for a very different reason and gain enjoyment from it. The same idea can be applied to film, television, or any medium.
This person is not disturbed because he plays a violent video game (I wouldn't credit any game with the ability to drastically alter someone's mental state - they aren't that powerful) instead he is playing a violent video game because he is disturbed. Furthermore, this is a violent game that the majority of people are enjoying for entirely different reasons, meaning the game has strong merit outside of simply satifying the urges of people who desire to kill.
Now, going back to Postal. You've got a game that does a poor job of appealing to either of the 2 main categories of consumer, and is really just about violence - Why do you think it wasn't popular? Few people consume pure violence with no context or substance to it. Among the few that do are people interested only in the shock value, and teenagers on a rebellion trip who aim to distance themselves as far from their parents definition of normal as possible. Neither of these groups are likely to be entertained by this for long. Finally you've got people genuinely interested in the violence who probably satisfy their fantasies with violent media. Now, i'd expect few people would see this as healthy, but i don't feel that this is something that needs to be addressed by censorship. These people consume media in this way as a result of their physcological problems, and banning the media itself solves nothing. It would be like banning slurred speech because you think drunk drivers are dangerous - you're not addressing the problem you're only addressing a side effect, and arguably a harmless side effect at that.
Parasite expressed a dislike of the notion of using games as an outlet, to relieve the desire to commit violent acts. Using games as an outlet, were it to prevent violent acts being performed, would obviously be 'positive'. However i agree that looking at games as an outlet misses the point - we shouldn't be allowing people to reach the stage where they need an outlet to prevent them raping and murdering. Mental disorders should be dealt with, and 'games as an outlet' should be a non-issue. If the only thing keeping people from going on a killing spree is a simulation that allows them to act out that fantasy in a virtual world, we're in a pretty messed up situation.
So on the question of wether there should be limits to what can be depicted in media, i'm mainly working off 2 arguments. Firstly, people aren't violent because they play violent games, it's the otherway around. While disturbed people may use violent media to explore their violent urges, this is a side effect of the disorder and not the cause. Secondly, a game with very graphic depictions of violence, that may be used by a disturbed person to explore his fantasies, can by enjoyed by the vast majority of consumers for an entirely different reason, and the same violence that appeals to the future serial killer can be part of a dense and immersive atmosphere that makes a game appealing to Joe Public.
The roman colosseum was supposedly a way for romans to vent their anger onto the game watching people die and get slaughtered by people and animals. Didn't help poor Caesar too much anyway.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
As was stated earlier, I do not think that there need to be *legal* boundaries on content of this type. Boiling down the argument, the video game industry is virtually self-policing on the commercial side. If a game goes too far, no one will buy it. Check out the definition of 'boycott' for a more detailed explanation of this theory.
Personally, I cannot accept the media-latched theories of video games, violent movies, and shock rock as being the reasoning behind why the two did what they did. I'd take a much closer look at the societal interrelations present. I can say almost for a fact that it was more likely their treatment at school that spurred their actions than any recreational entertainment. And I know that this next statement may discredit any theories I may have on the matter; I can sympathize with them. In pretty much every school out there, you have cliques. And the purpose of a clique is honestly to have someone NOT included. To force outsiders out, and treat them like crap. It may not be a conscious thing, but it is the state of matters.
I'm certain that many gamers on this forum are not a part of the 'popular crowd', if they still attend public school. Shunted aside by the jocks, the pretty ones, the activity-freaks. What many don't realize is just how badly those few who don't fit into any clique are treated. It's of my opinion that the two were sh**ted on nearly constantly. Sure, the 'survivors' will say that they were standoffish and freaky. The problem is, that's a 'history written by the winners' situation. The only ones left alive are going to villify, while keeping themselves and other 'innocents' smelling sweet. And though the abuse might not be too bad at your school, imagine how bad it COULD be. Personally, I was one of the geeks, drama freaks, and so on. If things were much worse, I might have done the same thing. Gum in the hair, being spit on (literally), having your backpack stolen and all of your work scattered over campus (including having sections flushed), having your bike, and then your car vandalized repeatedly, and going so far as to be jumped after school in a g*ybash. And that's just my own experiences. Ask yourself if you ever had to walk home, watching over your shoulder to see if you were being followed by a group of the popular guys, just so they could beat you up, or watch you try to run away. Or having to take a five-mile detour just to avoid one spot where you knew they were waiting for you to pass by. Ever been pinned by a guy, while another threatens you with a lit cigarette? That's the kind of crud that *went* on, locally.
But of course, dead people can do no wrong. We lie about people to remember them well, instead of who they actually were.
Postal. Or more precisely, Postal 2. A great game... the AI responds to your actions. You *can* be agressive and violent, racking up bodycount, or you can choose to just do your job and try to get through a day as your coworkers go psychotic and start trying to kill you. Honestly enough, violence is the main aspect of almost every video game out there. It's just that Postal and Postal 2 had much less storyline than most.
I completely agree with your thoughts on their school life and the incidents that drove them to do what they did. I believe they created their own closed sub-culture after being rejected by the in crowd, and that the trench coats and other imagery were symbols and an expression of this. As for how Doom fits into the equation, they may have enjoyed it as a means to release pent up anger, and a way to 'lash out' - an obvious response to the sort of incidents you're describing. Alternatively it could just have been a videogame, i mean since when was it unusual for people to play Doom?
However...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Honestly enough, violence is the main aspect of almost every video game out there. It's just that Postal and Postal 2 had much less storyline than most. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with this. If you examine every game as an outsider, and look only at what the images in the game or the theme of the game literally represent, then yes they're all centered around violence. But, this isnt the way games are consumed, they're played for very different reasons.
Going back to NS - if you look at NS as an outsider instead of a player, the game is literally about violence. 2 different races trapped on a space ship attempt to exterminate each other either by pumping the other full of lead, or ripping people apart with large teeth. Look at every game like that and you start sounding as overdramatic as the media does. Instead, if you look at what the players are getting out of the game, the reasons they are playing it and what it means to them, you see something different.
It's a game about competition, team work, strategic thinking. It's a game about the struggle to survive, with a thick atmosphere that grips you and creates suspense like a good film. That's why we play it.
I don't consider Quake 3 to be a game about violence - It's certainly a violent game, but it isnt a game about violence. It's a game about skillful competition, tactics, control and precise execution (And i don't mean execution in the death penalty sense). Viewing games in this way is the difference between media driven supporters of game censorship, who see a 10 second clip of a game and think how awful it is for our kids to be see someone get shot in the head with a rocket. And the actual game players, who see the same 10 second clip and complement the guy on good map control.
Only read the first post... And while I can see where you're coming from, I have to disagree.
Gaming is a very involving and personal activity. Even more so than movies.
People should censor themselves and not let others do it for them. It's difficult to build any true morals when you're not knowledgable about what's really out there that you can get yourself lost in and are not given a choice. You could know that you shouldn't do something, but you may not recognize why you shouldn't do it.
Thankfully we have the news to give our children all the violence and scandal that is censored from their normal entertainment.
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Nov 26 2003, 09:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Nov 26 2003, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As was stated earlier, I do not think that there need to be *legal* boundaries on content of this type. Boiling down the argument, the video game industry is virtually self-policing on the commercial side. If a game goes too far, no one will buy it. Check out the definition of 'boycott' for a more detailed explanation of this theory.
Personally, I cannot accept the media-latched theories of video games, violent movies, and shock rock as being the reasoning behind why the two did what they did. I'd take a much closer look at the societal interrelations present. I can say almost for a fact that it was more likely their treatment at school that spurred their actions than any recreational entertainment. And I know that this next statement may discredit any theories I may have on the matter; I can sympathize with them. In pretty much every school out there, you have cliques. And the purpose of a clique is honestly to have someone NOT included. To force outsiders out, and treat them like crap. It may not be a conscious thing, but it is the state of matters. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Certainly you cannot directly link the cause of violence in kids to violent games or movies, but what does it do? It gives them ideas. And while being an outcast or rejected by cliques may have spurred them on to so much hate that they took to shooting their peers, we must ask why.
What I really want to get at is the message that we, as a society, give to children when we condone acting out our own little fantasies. It tells us that it's okay for you to have them. It tells them that it's cool when **** blows up, and it's cool when the hero guy riddles a bunch of enemies with bullets. And we all know that kids want to be cool.
Now, this is fine. As long as we keep our children well-informed of the boundary between reality and fiction and what is proper, this sort of thing won't happen. But I feel that condoning some sort of VR ability to enact some sick fantasy like raping or brutalizing someone is going too far. It's easy to discount games like Doom or Counterstrike because it's got enough of a distinction from reality for people to easily tell the difference. But what happens when this becomes not the case? What if someone modeled photorealistic people into their games, and your objective was to kill them all with whatever guns you had at your disposal? Now, of course you may think that it would make little difference. After all, we are rational people. But we are also emotional people. And emotions trump rational judgment most of the time.
How are you supposed to tell someone who is so emotionally disturbed that there is a difference between make-believe and reality? And will he care?
This bunch of crock that people say about "something is okay if it doesn't physically harm other people" is nonsense, because if people are allowed to do it then they develop a sense that it is, in essence, not wrong in a fundamental way. And you risk them extending that sense into their real-life actions, especially when they get unhinged. (Those of you who don't believe in a sense of fundamental rightness will disagree, but that's another topic)
It is true that some of our responsibility lies with preventing people from neglect socially, but I do feel that we also have a responsibility to make sure people know what's right and what's wrong. There's really not much of an alternative to pop culture, and we have to make sure that pop culture doesn't turn into something where hurting people is acceptable, whether in virtual reality or in real life.
Comments
VR... hrmmm imagine what will happen in 50 years! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
Maybe our future is to be brains in some jar plugged into some Machine <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also, how hard would it be to tell if your in VR or not? Hrmm, i just took the goggles off and am now walking outside la la la la la BAM kill people <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> wont happen.
However, i do see a problem with VR games. Right now they say Video games are turning our kids into KILLAZ!!!! OMG NOOOOO.... Wait a second, i am not stupid and i realise that using a mouse and keyboard and using a gun are two different things! But what happens when you are using a virtual representation of a weapon? Then you would actually be holding a weapon, having to physicly load it, maintain it, know how it operates... then i would be worried (even then, who cares?)
The question, however, is if the effects of those advances are right or wrong. If what they do to people is right or wrong.
Lets create a nice little hypothetical, shall we? My ex-girlfriend lives right down the street from me, a nice little 300 foot stroll. We get along pretty well, but at times, she says something that makes me a little upset. Assume that I have the ability to re-create our neighborhood, model (let's call her Jane) in game, and do whatever I want in the virtual world. One night, I get a little bit angry at her, so I go home, fire up the VR sim, and make my in-sim avatar walk over to her house, knock on her door, shoot her dad, mom, and dog with 12-gauge shotgun shells, then walk upstairs and rape her until morning. Nobody is hurt the next morning, right? Nothing done?
How would you think Jane would feel about that? How do you think she would feel, seeing a photorealistic rendering of her throat cut, her body ravaged, lying on the floor of her room dying
I can bet she won't be happy with that.
The danger of virtual crime, or rape-sims, or what have you, by itself, is not society's problem. The problem comes when I, the user of said devices, become so utterly corrupt in my thought-life, that I don't give a damn about morals anymore. So what if I think about raping her? So what if I fantisize about it, it never hurts anyone, does it?
The fact is though, it does hurt someone. It hurts me. Everytime I look at her, I'm not going to see a smiling, beautiful woman, I'm going to see a raped carcass lying on the floor of her virtual room. And over time, I'll start to like it. Why shouldn't I? Every time I see it, I get pleasure, it's only natural that become the conditioned response to that mental imagery. Even if I never, ever act on those perversions, never go to jail for it, never find out, that corruption and debauchery of my mind is going to poison me for the rest of my life. I will NEVER be able to look at a girl the same way again.
Think I'm kidding you, being over-dramatic about it?
Try not fantisizing, not lusting, not looking at porn, not checking out girls for a month. No masturbation, no nothing. See how your attitude towards women changes. suddenly, it become easyer to keep your eyes off their chests while you talk to them, easyer to look them right in the eye, and easyer to see where they are coming from, because you no longer see a piece of meat, every time you look at a woman, you will see an actual human being.
I'm fairly convinced that's why Jesus said "He who lusts has already committed adultry in his heart." Even if you only accept him as a moral teacher, see where he is coming from. What goes on in our mind will, ultimately, present itself in our behavior.
The question, however, is if the effects of those advances are right or wrong. If what they do to people is right or wrong.
Lets create a nice little hypothetical, shall we? My ex-girlfriend lives right down the street from me, a nice little 300 foot stroll. We get along pretty well, but at times, she says something that makes me a little upset. Assume that I have the ability to re-create our neighborhood, model (let's call her Jane) in game, and do whatever I want in the virtual world. One night, I get a little bit angry at her, so I go home, fire up the VR sim, and make my in-sim avatar walk over to her house, knock on her door, shoot her dad, mom, and dog with 12-gauge shotgun shells, then walk upstairs and rape her until morning. Nobody is hurt the next morning, right? Nothing done?
How would you think Jane would feel about that? How do you think she would feel, seeing a photorealistic rendering of her throat cut, her body ravaged, lying on the floor of her room dying
I can bet she won't be happy with that.
The danger of virtual crime, or rape-sims, or what have you, by itself, is not society's problem. The problem comes when I, the user of said devices, become so utterly corrupt in my thought-life, that I don't give a damn about morals anymore. So what if I think about raping her? So what if I fantisize about it, it never hurts anyone, does it?
The fact is though, it does hurt someone. It hurts me. Everytime I look at her, I'm not going to see a smiling, beautiful woman, I'm going to see a raped carcass lying on the floor of her virtual room. And over time, I'll start to like it. Why shouldn't I? Every time I see it, I get pleasure, it's only natural that become the conditioned response to that mental imagery. Even if I never, ever act on those perversions, never go to jail for it, never find out, that corruption and debauchery of my mind is going to poison me for the rest of my life. I will NEVER be able to look at a girl the same way again.
Think I'm kidding you, being over-dramatic about it?
Try not fantisizing, not lusting, not looking at porn, not checking out girls for a month. No masturbation, no nothing. See how your attitude towards women changes. suddenly, it become easyer to keep your eyes off their chests while you talk to them, easyer to look them right in the eye, and easyer to see where they are coming from, because you no longer see a piece of meat, every time you look at a woman, you will see an actual human being.
I'm fairly convinced that's why Jesus said "He who lusts has already committed adultry in his heart." Even if you only accept him as a moral teacher, see where he is coming from. What goes on in our mind will, ultimately, present itself in our behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a good point. As I read the part about your ex, I thought you were going to make the point that this virtual behaviour would be a positive outlet, wich had me worried. Something like that I would liken to a person who makes a shrine of pictures, candles and a lock of hair covered in pigeon blood. Either one is seriously disturbing behaviour and should sound alarms. In any case, even without a twisted shrine or virtual rape...those kinds of fantasies are dangerous. "Mental imagery" generated by your own mind is already extremely vivid, realistic and more convincing to a person than VR could ever become. Anyone who actually has repeat fantasies of such nature is likely a danger with or without games, VR or any other influence. I'd say anything more than a passing daydream is worrysome. Personally my definition of "entertainment" doesnt encompass such behaviour. Its about fun first and foremost.
Yeah, making up the example disturbed me enough, I can't imagine doing it on a regular basis.
I wish the media would stop flogging this dead horse.
Seriously though, I obviously don't think there is any harm in computer games. It's the mental lusting and coveting over performing rape, murder, and brutal assault that is so dangerous, and unfortunately, that is what these rape simes look to help kindle.
But when it gets to the point of actually mimicking real life it becomes ad nauseum. Have you ever looked at a half decapitated body in a WWII photo, and thought, "Cool!"? I doubt it; seeing something gibbed in video games is absolutely nothing like how it looks for real. In the movie entertainment, war movies can be very good at portraying realistic violence, and seeing this, we feel a sense of sadness and repulsion, rather than a sense of awe in how glorious the violence shows itself to be, because there's nothing glorious at all about when it is reality. Note that every FPS currently out there, there hasn't been one that's given realistic facial expressions to pain. HL2 may be the first to take closer there, but as of yet, we haven't been directly shown how that will look, (the only people the demos show you face to face killing are combine soldiers, who don't show their faces). Still, HL2 is far from giving a real impression, and I'm thankful for that.
In respond to the the Legionnaired's example -- The main character in your example made the choice of creating and playing out his fantasies and that has affected him in some way. He didn't have to create the simulation. He didn't have to like the scenario he had created and could have come back to normal life appreciating even more what he had.
Morality will change over time; it is impossible to stop it from changing. The only thing that i am affraid of is, that the development of human kind will slow down as TV and PC games have wasted huge amount working time. And it won't get any better with the development of new, improved, games. Ahhhh... we need another "Cold War," or something like it, to make everyone reach for the stars again...
It's a good and bad thing, kind of like a double edged blade. On the one side, it's a vent- It gets out frustration, and it's not harmful to other people. But like other people have pointed out so very well, it's also "desensitisizng" - Seeing somone with a big, dirty cut for the first time is normally disgusting. After a while it fades, and in theory this could happen with video games (not now, but if graphic engines ever reach actual photo-realisim). So eventually seeing someone in a totally realistic environment getting their arm ripped off or so becomes normal.
[Edit: The debate. I'm a n00b] It'll never end.
Personally I just think that the media should take a look at this post and hire some people ^_^
isn't that supposed to be only for reported murder and rape? IIRC there's a really complex social issues regarding rape in japanese culture.
ugh, sorry i feel you're off the mark here.
The VR equpiment doesn't in any way make you want to kill and rape her family. That is your own fantasy, and arguably a very disturbed one. Wether you live out your fantasy in your mind or in a VR simulation, the initial fantasy is your own. A piece of paper and a pencil can be used to write or illustrate a brutal child rape, but paper doesn't create peadophiles.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The problem comes when I, the user of said devices, become so utterly corrupt in my thought-life, that I don't give a damn about morals anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In otherwords, the problem as you put it is not in the VR's depiction of violence, but in the fact that you are harbouring these thoughts, fantasies and desires in the first place. Which has nothing to do with the realisim of a simulation. Your example is very shocking, but that shock value comes from the brutality of the fantasy, not from the technology used to depict it. Your problem is exactly the same VR machine or no VR machine - Come home from Jane's house fantasising about killing her, imagining it in your head and perhaps playing the scenario out in a diary or on a web site (Sounding anything like a certain incident?). You have exactly the same corruption of mind, because that corruption is evident in the fact that you actually think about doing the act in the first place. A dream or fantasy has no less impact than a portrail of the same act on a screen, infact it probably has more impact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
they rape and murder less than other countries.
that is all you can get from that information. You could try to link it to the fact that they have simulators, but it could be any number of factors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it doesn't suggest that simulators directly reduce the number of rapes and murders - It does suggest that the number of these incidents are not increased by the availability of simulators, or that the effect the availability of simulators has on the number of rapes or murders is not very significant when compared to other factors, for example quality of parenting.
Lies, damned lies and statistics does not invalidate all statistics from a discussion. You just have to take care how you interpret them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But like other people have pointed out so very well, it's also "desensitisizng" - Seeing somone with a big, dirty cut for the first time is normally disgusting. After a while it fades, and in theory this could happen with video games (not now, but if graphic engines ever reach actual photo-realisim). So eventually seeing someone in a totally realistic environment getting their arm ripped off or so becomes normal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, i see no problem with desensitization at all. You can't equate not being shocked at a gory wound to wanting to inflict gory wounds upon people. Emergency room surgeons deal with death, blood and vital organs on a daily basis, this is total desensitization, yet they somehow manage to not go on murderous killing sprees.
However, with the advent of realistic VR, it gives a place to act out those sick, disturbed fantasies, to harbor them, and to grow them to such a proportion inside your mind that even though morality may keep you from doing it in real life, you can think of nothing else. You destroy your own life.
Lies, damned lies and statistics does not invalidate all statistics from a discussion. You just have to take care how you interpret them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lies, damned lies and statistics was a quote from Winston Churchill i believe. Doing A level maths and GCSE statistics has shown me one nice bit of information.
<b>You can make statistics say <i>whatever you want</b></i>
For example, in america the numbe of ice creams sold went up at the same time as the number of murders did. Conclusion: Ice cream causes people to murder each other.
See what i mean? Ok, the availability of rape simulators and the number of rapes are slightly more connected than ice cream and murder but the prinicple is the same.
If you can back the statistics up with evidence, such as interviews with people who rape or use the simulators, then the statement has more weight.
until then it is just a statistic
....a place to act out those sick, disturbed fantasies, to harbor them.....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean like <b>in your own head</b> as was the point i already made, or in a diary / website / any expressive medium you can possibly think of. I asked how the expression of these fantasies in a computer simulation was profoundly different to the expression of the same fantasies in a dream, or in any other playspace. It is still your fantasy that is the issue.
I don't believe that a computer simulation can cause someone to want to rape and murder a girlfriend's family, and it doesn't sound like you're suggesting that either. So given that this fantasy has arisen independantly of the computer simulation, why would exploring it with a computer simulation corrupt your 'morals' and cause you to act out on the desires, while exploring through a multitude of other means wouldn't?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
..destroy your own life yada yada..
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dramatising the violent acts or brutal fantasies doesn't add anything to the argument of wether a simulation can cause someone to act on them or not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You can make statistics say whatever you want
For example, in america the numbe of ice creams sold went up at the same time as the number of murders did. Conclusion: Ice cream causes people to murder each other.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good job being completely redundant, i specifically stated that the key is in interpreting them properly. You can make statistics say whatever you want only if you're willing to make a fallical interpretation that defies any reasonable logic. You were correct in pointing out that the Japan stats do not necessarily suggest rapes and murders are prevented by simulators. That in itself however, doesn't not make the statistics irrelevant to this discussion.
I made the comment to the effect that "anything more than a passing daydream" should ring alarm bells. But as I think about it...I have had consistent "disturbing fantasies", perhaps more acuratly described as a graphic murder scene in a movie. Eventualy Id like to write a book, or a script. I however feel no need to go act this out. Nor do I feel games should fill some kind of "vent" for these tendancies. These people need to be evaluated. I would have to strongly disagree with anyone who says games are a way to vent frustration or an outlet for inapropriate social behaviour. That is what psychologists and are for. Games, movies, books, theatre, Music and TV are about fun and entertainment, that is the only purpose they serve.
I would suffice to say that Morality is as strong as the mind that employs it, in some cases even stronger. If your personal moral code can be so easily disolved through a means of entertainment, problems are much deeper. These people will and always have been a problem for society.
To adress the origional question of this thread...Should there be boundaries? Yes and No, certianly not to the extent that we practice censorship, but yes, the industry will abide by self imposed guidelines as it always has...these boundaries will be set by the scociety they work for. Do you think its any coincidence that only a few games like "Postal" have ever been produced? For one, not many developers even want to make a game like that...Its very likely that almost <i>no</i> publisher would go near it, and there really isnt that great of a consumer market for a game like that.
That leads me onto a tangent, which is the reasons why people play and enjoy particular games. Concerning Postal, if i'm not mistaken - the entirely selling point and purpose is of this game was to be violent and offensive. It had no other substance, it wasn't a terribly entertaining game in its own right, but was simply an excuse to cram as much violent material onto a CD as possible. Now there is a marked difference between this and other games that could be just as violent, but actually have a solid game foundation hidden among the gore.
Picture a version of NS with excessive amounts of blood and realistic violence. That could be comparable to something like SOF2 or other contraversial games. People enjoy this game, but as always, not everyone enjoys it for the same reason. What we get out of a game varies greatly depending on who we are. Using NS as an example, most of the people who would play this game fall somewhere into 2 categories.
- People who enjoy the competitive element of the game, who strive to get better at the game and play it much like a recreational sport. They see the game as a set of rules, and they take enjoyment from this game in the same way you would take enjoyment from playing in a sunday league team or similar. To these people, the excessive violence in my special version of NS is a non-issue as it has no effect on the rules of the game. They probably wont even comment or take notice of it unless it happens to obscure their precise pistol aim in some way.
- People who enjoy the atmosphere, roleplay and story elements of the game. Who picture themselves on a spacestation fighting an alien force, and look for immersion in the game. They take enjoyment from the game much as they would from a book or film. These people would certainly take notice of the extra gore. Depending on how it was done or who you ask, the violence would either enhance or detract from the atmosphere and immersion of the game. The violence in this case serves as a way to create emotions and reactions, much as it would in a film such as saving private ryan. The effect it would have on the viewer would vary from person to person.
The vast majority of game players fall between these 2 categories, some people are a hybrid, in some cases where exactly we fall depends on which game we're playing. More or less all (successful) games appeal to one or both of these groups. And hopefully, you could not say that either of these groups are 'disturbed' in the way they consume their games. It is completely normal to take enjoyment from media in this way, and in the second case where violence is an issue, the way the game is consumed is perfectly mirrored to the way violent film and other media is consumed.
The purpose of the above is to demonstrate the main reasons why we play games. However, the very same games can be enjoyed by some people for entirely different reasons. Going back to our violent NS, it is entirely possible that a person who fantasizes about performing violent acts - Perhaps to enact revenge on classmates for abuse, or wanting to lash out and unleash pent up aggression, would enjoy the violent NS not for the competitive element, not for the atmosphere, but purely for the violence. Someone who gets a kick out of seeing bodyparts fly can play the same game as all of us for a very different reason and gain enjoyment from it. The same idea can be applied to film, television, or any medium.
This person is not disturbed because he plays a violent video game (I wouldn't credit any game with the ability to drastically alter someone's mental state - they aren't that powerful) instead he is playing a violent video game because he is disturbed. Furthermore, this is a violent game that the majority of people are enjoying for entirely different reasons, meaning the game has strong merit outside of simply satifying the urges of people who desire to kill.
Now, going back to Postal. You've got a game that does a poor job of appealing to either of the 2 main categories of consumer, and is really just about violence - Why do you think it wasn't popular? Few people consume pure violence with no context or substance to it. Among the few that do are people interested only in the shock value, and teenagers on a rebellion trip who aim to distance themselves as far from their parents definition of normal as possible. Neither of these groups are likely to be entertained by this for long. Finally you've got people genuinely interested in the violence who probably satisfy their fantasies with violent media. Now, i'd expect few people would see this as healthy, but i don't feel that this is something that needs to be addressed by censorship. These people consume media in this way as a result of their physcological problems, and banning the media itself solves nothing. It would be like banning slurred speech because you think drunk drivers are dangerous - you're not addressing the problem you're only addressing a side effect, and arguably a harmless side effect at that.
Parasite expressed a dislike of the notion of using games as an outlet, to relieve the desire to commit violent acts. Using games as an outlet, were it to prevent violent acts being performed, would obviously be 'positive'. However i agree that looking at games as an outlet misses the point - we shouldn't be allowing people to reach the stage where they need an outlet to prevent them raping and murdering. Mental disorders should be dealt with, and 'games as an outlet' should be a non-issue. If the only thing keeping people from going on a killing spree is a simulation that allows them to act out that fantasy in a virtual world, we're in a pretty messed up situation.
So on the question of wether there should be limits to what can be depicted in media, i'm mainly working off 2 arguments. Firstly, people aren't violent because they play violent games, it's the otherway around. While disturbed people may use violent media to explore their violent urges, this is a side effect of the disorder and not the cause. Secondly, a game with very graphic depictions of violence, that may be used by a disturbed person to explore his fantasies, can by enjoyed by the vast majority of consumers for an entirely different reason, and the same violence that appeals to the future serial killer can be part of a dense and immersive atmosphere that makes a game appealing to Joe Public.
Personally, I cannot accept the media-latched theories of video games, violent movies, and shock rock as being the reasoning behind why the two did what they did. I'd take a much closer look at the societal interrelations present. I can say almost for a fact that it was more likely their treatment at school that spurred their actions than any recreational entertainment. And I know that this next statement may discredit any theories I may have on the matter; I can sympathize with them.
In pretty much every school out there, you have cliques. And the purpose of a clique is honestly to have someone NOT included. To force outsiders out, and treat them like crap. It may not be a conscious thing, but it is the state of matters.
I'm certain that many gamers on this forum are not a part of the 'popular crowd', if they still attend public school. Shunted aside by the jocks, the pretty ones, the activity-freaks. What many don't realize is just how badly those few who don't fit into any clique are treated. It's of my opinion that the two were sh**ted on nearly constantly. Sure, the 'survivors' will say that they were standoffish and freaky. The problem is, that's a 'history written by the winners' situation. The only ones left alive are going to villify, while keeping themselves and other 'innocents' smelling sweet.
And though the abuse might not be too bad at your school, imagine how bad it COULD be. Personally, I was one of the geeks, drama freaks, and so on. If things were much worse, I might have done the same thing. Gum in the hair, being spit on (literally), having your backpack stolen and all of your work scattered over campus (including having sections flushed), having your bike, and then your car vandalized repeatedly, and going so far as to be jumped after school in a g*ybash. And that's just my own experiences.
Ask yourself if you ever had to walk home, watching over your shoulder to see if you were being followed by a group of the popular guys, just so they could beat you up, or watch you try to run away. Or having to take a five-mile detour just to avoid one spot where you knew they were waiting for you to pass by.
Ever been pinned by a guy, while another threatens you with a lit cigarette? That's the kind of crud that *went* on, locally.
But of course, dead people can do no wrong. We lie about people to remember them well, instead of who they actually were.
Postal. Or more precisely, Postal 2. A great game... the AI responds to your actions. You *can* be agressive and violent, racking up bodycount, or you can choose to just do your job and try to get through a day as your coworkers go psychotic and start trying to kill you. Honestly enough, violence is the main aspect of almost every video game out there. It's just that Postal and Postal 2 had much less storyline than most.
However...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Honestly enough, violence is the main aspect of almost every video game out there. It's just that Postal and Postal 2 had much less storyline than most.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with this. If you examine every game as an outsider, and look only at what the images in the game or the theme of the game literally represent, then yes they're all centered around violence. But, this isnt the way games are consumed, they're played for very different reasons.
Going back to NS - if you look at NS as an outsider instead of a player, the game is literally about violence. 2 different races trapped on a space ship attempt to exterminate each other either by pumping the other full of lead, or ripping people apart with large teeth. Look at every game like that and you start sounding as overdramatic as the media does. Instead, if you look at what the players are getting out of the game, the reasons they are playing it and what it means to them, you see something different.
It's a game about competition, team work, strategic thinking. It's a game about the struggle to survive, with a thick atmosphere that grips you and creates suspense like a good film. That's why we play it.
I don't consider Quake 3 to be a game about violence - It's certainly a violent game, but it isnt a game about violence. It's a game about skillful competition, tactics, control and precise execution (And i don't mean execution in the death penalty sense). Viewing games in this way is the difference between media driven supporters of game censorship, who see a 10 second clip of a game and think how awful it is for our kids to be see someone get shot in the head with a rocket. And the actual game players, who see the same 10 second clip and complement the guy on good map control.
Gaming is a very involving and personal activity. Even more so than movies.
People should censor themselves and not let others do it for them. It's difficult to build any true morals when you're not knowledgable about what's really out there that you can get yourself lost in and are not given a choice. You could know that you shouldn't do something, but you may not recognize why you shouldn't do it.
Thankfully we have the news to give our children all the violence and scandal that is censored from their normal entertainment.
Personally, I cannot accept the media-latched theories of video games, violent movies, and shock rock as being the reasoning behind why the two did what they did. I'd take a much closer look at the societal interrelations present. I can say almost for a fact that it was more likely their treatment at school that spurred their actions than any recreational entertainment. And I know that this next statement may discredit any theories I may have on the matter; I can sympathize with them.
In pretty much every school out there, you have cliques. And the purpose of a clique is honestly to have someone NOT included. To force outsiders out, and treat them like crap. It may not be a conscious thing, but it is the state of matters.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Certainly you cannot directly link the cause of violence in kids to violent games or movies, but what does it do? It gives them ideas. And while being an outcast or rejected by cliques may have spurred them on to so much hate that they took to shooting their peers, we must ask why.
What I really want to get at is the message that we, as a society, give to children when we condone acting out our own little fantasies. It tells us that it's okay for you to have them. It tells them that it's cool when **** blows up, and it's cool when the hero guy riddles a bunch of enemies with bullets. And we all know that kids want to be cool.
Now, this is fine. As long as we keep our children well-informed of the boundary between reality and fiction and what is proper, this sort of thing won't happen. But I feel that condoning some sort of VR ability to enact some sick fantasy like raping or brutalizing someone is going too far. It's easy to discount games like Doom or Counterstrike because it's got enough of a distinction from reality for people to easily tell the difference. But what happens when this becomes not the case? What if someone modeled photorealistic people into their games, and your objective was to kill them all with whatever guns you had at your disposal? Now, of course you may think that it would make little difference. After all, we are rational people. But we are also emotional people. And emotions trump rational judgment most of the time.
How are you supposed to tell someone who is so emotionally disturbed that there is a difference between make-believe and reality? And will he care?
This bunch of crock that people say about "something is okay if it doesn't physically harm other people" is nonsense, because if people are allowed to do it then they develop a sense that it is, in essence, not wrong in a fundamental way. And you risk them extending that sense into their real-life actions, especially when they get unhinged. (Those of you who don't believe in a sense of fundamental rightness will disagree, but that's another topic)
It is true that some of our responsibility lies with preventing people from neglect socially, but I do feel that we also have a responsibility to make sure people know what's right and what's wrong. There's really not much of an alternative to pop culture, and we have to make sure that pop culture doesn't turn into something where hurting people is acceptable, whether in virtual reality or in real life.