Knockout

[Light]

I think this is going to fall into a matter of opinion on what is too close to reality for each individual person for their comfort. Kind'a makes debate pointless unless we were to jump into effects on the special few that may attempt to duplicate it in their life, which I'm not really interested in. I consider movies to be way worse if you're going into that view. Even with games providing some control over what happens, I think how much more realistic and how much further movies are allowed to go would make them worse.

I don't think either are bad though. I think if someone is going to try and murder because of a game that there would very likely be something else that sets them off if the game weren't there. I find it hard to believe in too many cases that the game is really to blame.

[sinewav]

It's fun because you always dreamed of being a hero, or having super powers or being a total badass nobody could ever intimidate. In that game you are a badass and you do stuff you couldn't possibly do even if you wanted to, and you hurt nobody in the process.

I'm not sure how driving over randoms pedestrians in GTA makes you a badass hero. Care to explain?

As far as the Jesus thing .. It's a bit lost on an atheist.

I used Jesus and Gandhi as models of pacifism and humanism, not divinity. Belief in God is not a prerequisite for the statement to have meaning. Also, I don't believe in God.

My point was that the game we're playing here is supposed to mimic that. It's just that we don't look at it as people dying.

I would argue that it does not show people dying because that's not what is happening. An outsider looking at Armagetron would see a bunch of lines on a screen. If they looked really close they could make out a shape at the beginning of the line. It probably wouldn't even occur to them is was a cycle, maybe some weird car, but even that might not make sense because what car leaves a wall behind it? Perhaps it is some weird rolling machine that makes walls? Contrast this with GTA or COD. It is very clear at every point in the game exactly what is happening. There is plenty of blood to illustrate the point. An outsider looking at Armagetron would have no clue there were supposed to be people driving the little machines around. In addition, a peculiarly large number of people who play this game have never seen the original Tron movie! Besides all of that, when the movie put people in a cycle that makes wall was a kind of anthropomorphism of snake-like games. Armagetron is a step backward from that, returning more of the original abstractness. If you removed the cycles and any hint of humanness from the game it would make no difference whatsoever. The same is not true for GTA, COD, etc. The games depend on human violence.

If you shoot a box in a game, that's no problem right? If they say there's a person in that box, would it be a problem?

That depends. What happens to the box when I shoot it? What happens to the person inside? Is it at all meaningful there is a person in the box? The difference is, again, the level of abstractness. In modern "reality" based games the people in the box experience virtual suffering, plainly seen. Why is this suffering attractive, or at least, why is it not repulsive? Don't you find your immunity to it questionable?

I think this is going to fall into a matter of opinion on what is too close to reality for each individual person for their comfort. Kind'a makes debate pointless unless we were to jump into effects on the special few that may attempt to duplicate it in their life, which I'm not really interested in.

I think you can have a serious debate about it without copy-cats. Allow me to explain my position in a different way.

With only a slight exaggeration I feel confident I can show you an example of video game violence gone too far. Let us mix a war-based FPS with the free roaming mayhem of GTA. In this game (which will probably be released as soon as someone can weather the lawsuits) you are a buff, badass, mercenary hired by a secret organization as part of a large paid army designed to snuff out terrorists and arms dealers smugging nuclear components. Sounds good so far, right? After being dropped into the target area you and your comrades handily kill scores of well-armed bad guys. Good job! Well, we want the game to be realistic and this is war so... When the campaign is complete your next objective is to rape the 10 year old daughter of one of the terrorists. After all, terrorists are people too and they have families, all of which you have just killed with mortar rounds. Remember, realism. So you now get to hear a girl crying and see tears as you push the A and B buttons endlessly to violate her virgin, bleeding orifices. And since this is a multi-player game, your friends can join in. Fantastic!

Some of you might think this is absurd, but it is not very far away from the games out right now. Do you think raping a 10 year old girl in a video game is distasteful? How is the violence in these other games somehow more palatable? Or maybe you don't think the rape part of the game is interesting? Then how is blowing someone's head off with a sniper rifle better? Don't worry, I'm sure the game programmers would make the rape scene a challenge for you. I'm also 100% positive some of you reading this would really get off on the rape. You would make jokes about it too. For those who don't think virtual rape is fun, would it be Ok to look down on someone who enjoys and jokes about raping a 10 year old in a video game? If you agree to look down on them you know how I feel about video game violence in general.

If game violence is a continuum between real and abstract then it's very easy to see we crossed the line of disgust a long time ago. Following this path contributes nothing of value to society or art. If you like games for the gameplay then don't let the game get spoiled by the emptiness of shock and gore.

[woof]

If killing people in video games makes you "little better" than the people who beat a man to death in real life, then I guess I'm a pretty crappy person.

[Fippmam]

At this point, you're just splitting hairs. Also, your fantasy video game is one of the more disgusting things I've read in a while.

First of all, your argument about how the opacity of Tron makes it different than GTA or COD is just silly. Who cares about what someone (who doesn't play this game) thinks might be going on? Bottom line is it is a game where men and women in light cycles, crash to their death in a rather colorful explosion of cold metal and bloody entrails. Yeah you can't see the ashy corpses but hey, its just pixels on a screen. Those pixels can be used to generate nearly any effect - all that matters is what they symbolize.

Secondly, the main thing you're failing to see is that video games really do NOT mirror reality. Yea sure current programmers and developers aim for realism (in the most parietal sense) in game design, but your fantasy one crossed the mile about a kiloparsec ago. See in GTA, Trevor (the badass) literally goes on "rampages" and kills hoards of hippies because they call him an old man. While this carnage is going on, you're immune to the retribution of law, so the cops essentially ignore you. Now, how realistic is this? Simple - it isn't.

Another thing you're failing to see is that these games actually adhere to the common moral convictions shared by mankind. In GTA if you perform crimes, the cops come after you and if your wanted level is high enough, your death is guaranteed. In games like COD, you're only allowed to kill designated NPCs that more often than not, reject these moral convictions. Yea in COD4 I loved when i put a bullet through Al Asad's head, but the guy was a horrible dictator/terrorist. He literally assassinated the president of a country...in front of national TV. Sue me for wanting him dead.

You kill people in COD, yea. But it's war - that's what happens. Difference is that these games actually (more often than not), make the main character the moral one. You will never see a game with something as grotesque and inhumane as you conjured up.

We've been here over and over again. Parents think video games are too violent; researchers find no link between violence in real life, and violence in video games. Dude - it's just a video game. If you can't control your primal urges, don't blame it on an overpriced piece of software.

Oh BTW, you probably already knew this but: Far worse inhumane things happened before the modern age of video games. Jack the Ripper, Dr Crippen, Gilles de Rais, the ugly gross Pied Piper (pretty sure he raped them), war rapes, and a ton of other crimes against humanity. I dunno about anyone else, but I'd like to think that unlike these guys, I have a shot at heaven, even though I played GTA. Btw lets not turn this into something religious...what that being said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge45R9qoW_Y

[woof]

Jack the Ripper, Dr Crippen, Gilles de Rais, the ugly gross Pied Piper (pretty sure he raped them), war rapes, and a ton of other crimes against humanity

Don't forget about Genghis Khan

[Mecca]

How is GTA more realistic than Tron?

GTA allows you to:
-Carry an arsenal of weapons while being able to run around at the speed of an olympic marathon runner with no fatigue.
-Spawn tanks out of thin air.
-Respawn
-Survive outrageous falls and still be able to run like it's free cone day at Ben&Jerry's.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the most abused cheat code in gaming history...

*drumroll*

Wanted level: 0

Trying to understand things from Sine's point of view:

You're not much better than the people playing knockout IRL if you're playing the game with intentions of hurting and terrorizing virtual people.

Is that a fair statement?

Because from some of the other people in this topic, they are saying:

We don't think of the people in GTA as humans, we are just having fun with the (lack of?) limitations and real world impact of our game, and they just happen to be objects in the environment.

I'm not sure how driving over randoms pedestrians in GTA makes you a badass hero. Care to explain?

This world would be a much better place with less J-walkers. Someone's gotta' do it.

[Light]

Bottom line is it is a game where men and women in light cycles, crash to their death in a rather colorful explosion of cold metal and bloody entrails.

You're forgetting the part where they're set to fight against each other, to the death for a source of entertainment and punishment.

If all you can see is a blur of this, I don't see how that's better than seeing it in perfect quality. You know exactly what they're trying to show you, whether or not it's in great detail.

What about games like Mario? You go around and jump on animals that are very easy to tell what they are. You're killing these animals just because you want to go jump on a flag pole. This must be one of the most horrid games ever released.

You keep saying how this game isn't as bad because you can't tell there's a person in there going to die. You know what's meant to be there, you know what they're showing you when they explode, you know it's the users death that you just caused as a source of fun. How is this better just because it's harder to tell what it is without knowing?

In fact, it may be worse in this case. We have a whole story of the people that we are imitating in this game. We've had the ability to grow attached to certain people (programs) and now we can control them and cause their death or them to kill others.

[Word]

The only GTA title I played was San Andreas, and I think it uses violence in the same way as Quentin Tarantino. There's a reason the games are for adults, but obviously many children get their parents to buy them or get them elsewhere, and can't grasp the social commentary. If one is a little afraid of himself after shooting some pedestrians (or any character at all), or torturing an innocent guy (to paraphrase what Trevor said, according to some essay I read about that scene: "Torturing was made for psychopaths"), that's good. If you aren't, you probably aren't old enough for that kind of game. I also liked Assassin's Creed, since I felt that it's less about killing than the way you reach the target, and the story tries to make the assassinations halfway excusable and discourages you from killing civilians (if you kill three pedestrians, you need to restart from the last checkpoint). The game was aware of its protagonists' moral paradox.

Bottom line is it is a game where men and women in light cycles, crash to their death in a rather colorful explosion of cold metal and bloody entrails.

Until now, I didn't know a single player who is seeing this when core dumping someone. Even the persons in the movie were anthropomorphous programs or allegories, not real humans.

Another thing you're failing to see is that these games actually adhere to the common moral convictions shared by mankind. In GTA if you perform crimes, the cops come after you and if your wanted level is high enough, your death is guaranteed.

Except that you can shoot them all if you're good at that, or use a cheat, or get away with it in some other way (changing your car, clothes etc.).

You kill people in COD, yea. But it's war - that's what happens. Difference is that these games actually (more often than not), make the main character the moral one.

Ugh, so when there's an actual war, you'll just behave the way you play a video game and follow orders without questioning them, kill everyone you can and justify that by saying that you're the good guys ("the moral ones") and they're the bad guys.

Oh BTW, you probably already knew this but: Far worse inhumane things happened before the modern age of video games. Jack the Ripper, Dr Crippen, Gilles de Rais, the ugly gross Pied Piper (pretty sure he raped them), war rapes, and a ton of other crimes against humanity.

From my understanding, this debate is about whether more graphically advanced, violent games will make humans as a whole become more inhuman in the future, not about some famous serial killers or rather unique religious and political atrocities of the past. And considering all the other shit our generation will have to deal with, that's an even more frightening outlook.

[takburger]

I liked the S.W.A.T. game where you had to handcuff everyone to get best score at a mission, it was hard when enemy had tear gas mask protection and kevlar and ak47

I was using tazers and tear gas bullets and lot of patience and analysis and fiber cams

[Fippmam]

Ugh, so when there's an actual war, you'll just behave the way you play a video game and follow orders without questioning them, kill everyone you can and justify that by saying that you're the good guys ("the moral ones") and they're the bad guys.

When did I even hint at that? I've re-read my post several times and I never even alluded to that. You and sine are drawing unnecessary parallels between a video game and actual war. Our armed forces play these kinds of games all the time and you don't see them (for the most part at least) going on killing/raping sprees.

In fact, I bet if you asked them, they would gladly elaborate on how unrealistic these games are. That's kinda why we play games - to escape from reality. If I wanted realism, then I'd turn off the console and live life. If they wanted realism, they'd turn off their consoles and **** their assault rifles and whatnot. Normal healthy adults are not as impressionable as you think (I feel a page long debate about this coming). And as for the children - well, that's why the ESRB exists.

Oh and to your last paragraph word (sorry, too lazy to quote), I listed those guys in an effort to prove that more inhumane things have already been done before the advent of modern video games. The world is already a shit-hole and video games neither caused nor fueled it.

edit: for some reason, the simple present form of "cocked" is bleeped on this forum o.o I thought we were all adults here xD Reminds me of wizard101...

[Word]

When did I even hint at that? I've re-read my post several times and I never even alluded to that.

In the passage I quoted. How else is one supposed to interpret "but it's war - that's what happens" if not "this is how a war works". Also, consider that video game companies already ask veterans to help them set up realistic scenarios (that idealize your own troops) in their products. The games seem perhaps unrealistic to you because your idea of war is unrealistic.

[Light]

In the passage I quoted. How else is one supposed to interpret "but it's war - that's what happens" if not "this is how a war works". Also, consider that video game companies already ask veterans to help them set up realistic scenarios (that idealize your own troops) in their products. The games seem perhaps unrealistic to you because your idea of war is unrealistic.

The games are unrealistic because you go into it comprehending that it's simply a game, virtual. It doesn't affect reality. We can build bombs 'n stuff, but we don't go put them in pyramids and blow parts of the world apart for fun because we can in Minecraft.

Most people understand the difference between a video game, movie, etc. and real life.

[takburger]

The war games are realistic by the graphics and scenarios, but how players play is far from reality.

Also, some armies use war games to train soldiers to some stuff.

[Fippmam]

The games seem perhaps unrealistic to you because your idea of war is unrealistic.

Right, and you would know that for certain because you've served in the armed forces, or experienced war in any personal way (which I REALLY doubt).

[Word]

Right, and you would know that for certain because you've served in the armed forces, or experienced war in any personal way (which I REALLY doubt).

No, and I don't want to be a soldier in the first place - if you're going to go for an ad-hominem. However, I wonder what you're thinking when you picture some soldier sitting in front of his computer with a joystick in his hand, launching a drone strike and thus killing lots of civilians. Wouldn't you agree that his experience isn't so different from that of you playing games and that thanks to this growing detachment it's irrelevant anyway?

Most people understand the difference between a video game, movie, etc. and real life.

Please stop beginning sentences by using "Most people". With a start like this, the rest can only get worse. What about the movies and simulations used by the army to train their soldiers, how do you explain those? There are even rumours that they used to show them images of ravaged corpses to lose their last stoppages. What about all the propaganda of totalitarian regimes?