Violence in video games has probably been an issue thats all over the world right now. I have seen many news reports that practically tell the viewer not to buy the game because it’s too violent.
But what makes me angry is that they jump the gun by a mile, yes some things that they say are true about games most notably Grand Theft Auto. It seems that the news industry feeds on grand theft auto as if it is a “watch and you’ll become a serial kill” kind of thing.
Also, I have never seen a horror game criticized on television. Some of those horror games out there sicken me, some are even games where you are a serial killer and end up doing horrific things to people.
Yet the news turns a blind eye to these video games!
There’s also a lot more stuff about movies but I won’t go on anymore.
And a few with restrictions like GTA. In NZ if you judge yourself that it doesnt need a rating, you can sell it unclassified. If you want it to be “rated” Its over $1000 to get that rating from the Censorship Board from memory.
I personally believe you have to be a little demented to enjoy a video game in which you are forced to play as a scumbag criminal (any GTA), but I certainly don’t think any game should be banned.
I can’t find a choice that suits me in your list. I do think games can have the effect on some people of inspiring them to commit offenses they otherwise might not, but that’s a problem with the people, not the games. And for the record, there are several ultra-violent games (and other media) which I have enjoyed over time.
I heard from more than one source that after GTA was released, carjackings went down. Either that’s a coincidence, or else potential carjackers got enough of the thrill virtually that they didn’t feel the need to do it in real life anymore.
I think movies like Saw or Hostel which picture torture in its purest form are much more violent than say GTA or Manhunt which are both not so realistic (visually speaking).
But maybe it’s because I’m so used to video games that I think it’s not realistic… Maybe someone who just isn’t used to play games might be shocked in seeing the visual quality of these titles.
Another point, some media like TV dislike the fact that more and more people play games instead of watching TV and as a result they tend to create polemics based on nothing…
Hey, I thought it was pretty stupid (Cary Elwes’s accent was abominable), but I liked all that torture stuff. I don’t think it should be played out in real life, but it can be cathartic to see bad things happen to bad people in effigy.
And the action of banning media is a greater evil than any fictional on-screen violence/crime I have or ever will have seen. One of the great things the internet has brought us is the ability to see actual brutality in action. Watch any piece of that, and then tell me that it’s worth anyone’s time trying to ban media. There are much better things to do with your life than waste it on promoting censorship.
Not at all. I dig it. Being able to explore completely over-the-top stuff like that can be greatly enjoyable to me. And obviously, I’m far from being alone in that.
However, torturing an actual living creature is not something I condone in the least. The fact that nearly everyone around me promotes that kind of stuff is extremely unnerving, and makes my waking life quite a nightmare. But that’s probably a conversation for some other kind of forum!
Not to derail conversation, so I’ll only say one thing to that. I live in the US - in the midwest too and the statement “nearly everyone around me promotes (torture)” would be very inaccurate if it is intended to refer to the US public’s “support” of torture. Even to say that the US public “supports” torture is misleading at best.
I think that WorldPublicOpinion.org put it best when they said “policies of the United States and the rhetoric of the war on terror had had a great effect on public acceptance of torture.” Note that this is referring to acceptance only when terrorists are involved (43 percent of people in the 19 nations polled favored an an exception to an outright ban on torture of terrorists are involved… people in the US and several other countries were part of this group).
I think that “accept” is the key word here. Under certain circumstances, a percentage of the US population believes that torture is the only course of action available and accepts it. To take that a step further and say that they “support” it - which implies that it is somehow a desirable course of action - or that they actively “promote” it is something that no comprehensive public polls seem to support.
So to go from “some people in the US - not a clear majority - accept torture under specific circumstances as a result of government rhetoric” to “people in the US promote torture” is a big leap and it is misleading.
I’ll end here - I’m not trying to start an argument, but I wanted to get that out there because when I first read your post I was like “man, am I living in such an isolated world that I’m that unaware of how people feel about this”, but there are some good current surveys that have been published, and after some digging I just don’t see any reasonable support for such a statement.
Charles, I will admit that I am very fuzzy on the difference between “accept” and “support”, as you put it. However, that’s not actually what I meant. There are a whole lot of living creatures out there that are not human.
More from a language standpoint than anything else - because the difference between accept and support is sort of interesting.
I guess that I’m looking at accept in this context as being that the public regards the course of action as appropriate. It is the most passive on the list of words - still, it is an affirmation of the activity nonetheless. Support seems to imply taking an active interest in and being loyal to the idea of the activity.
How is this: “I accept George Bush as my president and several people I know support him.” vs “I support George Bush as my president and several people I know accept him”. Those have more obviously different meanings.
Interesting because there is so much overlap with those words and in a lot of circumstances they would probably mean close enough to the same to have no real difference. I like words.
Back on the topic of this post. I think that games have long been in the process of evolving into a more broad media, it started out as cartoons did, just for kids, then those kids grew up and are now adults (some more so than others) and they still play games and watch cartoons. The people creating the ratings for these somewhat new genres seem to be a tat behind the times and still consider them to be meant for kids. The industry however have feelers out and the market tells them that a much more mature movement is happening, and rightly so, now people of all ages play games and the ratings should be given accordingly! The fact that certain games are banned in some countries is a blatant breach of the freedom of expression in my opinion, games should be considered art, just like movies, cartoons and comics are considered art, and therefore should have the freedom to contain any content as long as they are rated appropriately. I really pity the Aussies when their eccentric government starts banning games for being too violent, the news are too violent, they are not being banned…
That’s a pipe dream. Tell people what your artwork contains if you want to, but there’s no way to say “this is appropriate for you, but not you”. When a game gets an AO rating, it basically can’t be sold. And there’s no telling if it gets that rating until a whole lot of money has (probably) been spent developing it. Who do you actually give that power to?
No, I am not in any way open to having products rated by an external body. And I don’t think it’s a good idea to trust parents with keeping their children safe in this fashion, either. Let the almighty dollar of all people decide.
