The 'Violence in video games' argument again!

docdolittle

hooradiation wrote: »

hyperbole? On the Internet? SHOCKING!

.....

Die in a fire is just an expression, don't fret.



oh god, you're going to make a thing out of this, aren't you.....




I'm pretty certain IW are trying to tell a story here, it may be a clichéd one, but it's a story.

If developers want their story telling to be taken seriously then they're going to have to accept that people may find their story a bit tasteless in places and question why the scene exists.

Amazingly if you have an industry that's spent forever trying to assert that they aren't just cheap disposable pieces of electronic fluff, then they don't get a free pass when their efforts turn out to be crass.

It's like a damned roundabout. Roger Eber claims that video games "could not be art" and we're all clambering to prove him wrong, say that this killing civilians scene is crass and suddenly it's all "Jeez, it's just a game, relax"

no wonder nobody takes us seriously....

I was just joking about your die in a fire part don't worry I don't take things that seriously I had to learn about the whole "are games art" argument, and then after that "What is art" It actually made me think about what we consider art, especially with "art" such as this

Is this art? It is displayed in an art gallary by an artist...

Back on topic though: There are a lot more violent games that are just overly violent for the sake of violence, I don't think IW are going for this. They are however, in a way, making you think about your morals if you choose to play this Just like in many games such as Fable or Black & White, you have the choice to do this evil thing or not

Zillah

Quotin' from page 1 in this here thread.

WolfForager wrote: »

But that 1% can be quite insane, ie. the teenager in the US who killed his parents because they took away his copy of Halo3, thinking "O, they'll respawn".

Such a person is so insane they were going to explode at some point, the actual form their break down takes is immaterial.

mixednuts wrote: »

Can I ask the question a little differently .
Do you think gaming , on line FPS for example, raises agression levels ?

Yes, perhaps temporarily, as any competitive activity will. Best ban sports so.

eldin

Whatever happened to Jack Thompson? I used to get a giggle out of his rants and tirades against violence in games.

Anyway, since when is killing innocents in games new? If I'm not specifically penalised in a game (failing a mission or something) then i'll often set up some innocent bystander carnage just to watch them fly through the air, often with hilarious consequences. On the flipside, if I saw someone hit their hand with a hammer in real life I'd be squeemish.

If a game is over 18 and retailers are barred from selling to underage kids then the buck stops with the parents and nobody else.

hooradiation

docdolittle wrote: »

Back on topic though: There are a lot more violent games that are just overly violent for the sake of violence, I don't think IW are going for this. They are however, in a way, making you think about your morals if you choose to play this Just like in many games such as Fable or Black & White, you have the choice to do this evil thing or not

Hmmm, I'm not convinced, i really do think it's just for publicities sake. I'd have more conviction in it being a story telling device if they either just made you do it/made you witness it or didn't.

It's not a moral game really, it's no Fable or B&W where your choices shape the story (at least as far as i can see), it's a bull run. Which is fine, but then adding in a 'choice' element that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the rest of the game just seems at odds with that.

Especially when that choice is around an area that would be controversial... it's either publicity or damage limitation and i can't really respect either of them.

BlitzKrieg

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think you're doing the medium an incredible disservice there. Videogames are increasingly capable of immersing the user in their virtual worlds and of provoking emotional responses. The strive for, and popularity of, HD graphics, Dolby Surround sound, rumble feedback, motion control and increased graphic fidelity all underline how important it is for the player to feel some way connected to the character's on-screen actions. To distil it down to "playing with dolls" is to hugely underplay what the medium is capable of.

Its interesting that people take this stance that video games are more harmful because of their interactivity. Yet talk to filmmakers over the years and they will tell you the complete opposite (and its a popular theory in film studies). Passive media like films are much more influential because of their passive design. The layout of a cinema is designed to create a one to one experiance between every viewer where they are essentially swallowed as a vouyer of the events onscreen. Its supposed to link directly with the viewers subconcious and the lack of control is a major factor of this.

Two interesting asides to this is A) its a factor of why people are so angry at those who talk in the cinema and why films tend to be not as powerful at home.

In each case its control being given to an entity. In the case of the talker in the cinema, its someone else pulling you out of the experiance. And in the case of at home, the design allows for you to wonder from the events on screen (your living room, differen channels, the ability to pause etc etc) so it doesnt connect as strongly.


The same logic applied to video games presents a clear and simple series of events.


Event on screen - Player's reaction.

But on a sub concious level.

Events on screen

-Association of said events with controls/points/rewards

-Application of said controls to achieve said points for said rewards

Players reaction.

Video games have a natural barrier against the events on screen that work as a constent reminder that the actions happening are not real.

The extent of it is much more then any other media. All the features of video are there. You can pause etc. But much more on top of that, menu's huds and artificial identifiers are constantly there to ground the player.

Players will get a rush for surviving an onslaught in Halo or Gears of War with 1HP remaining, for sneaking up and knifing somebody in the back in Assassin's Creed, or for taking on a dozen goons in Arkham Asylum. If videogames didn't provoke these responses, people wouldn't play them!

THe responses they evoke though and the rush all constantly have artificial barriers that ensure that the rush is firmly kept in the same risk/reward responses one gets from playing a sport or a card game. Artificial rules abided by (kept 1HP as you put it). complex hand eye coordination and application of combos (Arkham Asylum and Assassin's creed) THe sub concious is constantly grounded in reality with every action committed.


The single best proof of this artificial barrier is to simply go to a lan. Go and look at people who play alot of counter strike, how they have it set up and play the game. They play to the mechanics of the software and not to the events on screen.

Bunny hopping

awp whoring

zerg rushing (stracraft)

long distance grenade throwing (cod4)

and so on. People who play video games very quickly break them down to their artificial elements.





On the game itself though.


I've said it on the cod forum, I am torn on the issue. Not because of the violence, but because of the excuse. They say that they want to show the horrors of terrorism.

Well the events depicted in the game (I've seen the video) is not terrorism. It looks like something else which i'll get to in a moment, but who has actually seen a terrorist attack where they walk through an airport indescriminantly shooting. I've not.


It does remind me of something though, and that is what makes me uncomfortable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UcvxNNJJ-A

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=FAE2WQPC

Yes I'm serious, the events on screen does remind me of a school shooting more so then any act of terrorism.

Does that mean I think it should be banned or censored?

No, but I do think the section might have warranted a better think through maybe.


They will get a media sh*tstorm. From america it will mostly because the player is actually an undercover CIA agent committing the atrocity, so expect fox news to go at it from that angle, though to be honest I have disliked the jingoism of the war FPS games like COD and MOH for a while now so I actually like the undercover CIA part of it.

I just think they might have tried to be more creative in the scenario. Cause at the moment it looks like a school shooting to me.

docdolittle

Might want to throw up NSFW or warn the not so desensitized amoung us for that youTube vid Blitz :P Some people are against violence a lil' in this thread and that one even shocked me a lil

Dont be at yourself

Good post Blitzkrieg, it's always interesting to hear from the other side of the fence! I'm not a psychologist, so I can't really make a judgement on how sound your reasoning is. However, there's plenty of food for thought there.

Despite your argument that the voyeurism aspect to cinema ultimately influences the viewer to a greater extent, I can't help but disagree. In videogames, the player must actively and consciously make decisions and take actions to perform often gruesome acts of violence. We've all experienced the satisfaction of a stealth kill, which illustrates how emotionally engaging the videogames can be. As I've said, the vast majority can distinguish between reality and videogames, but surely associating such actions with the positive emotions videogames evoke has a harmful affect on children and the mentally immature.

You mention that a gamer will quickly break down a game into its core mechanics and effectively detach from the on-screen events. I agree that there's some truth in that. However, looking at how games have evolved in the last 25 years, you must agree that this isn't as easy as it once was. Blockbuster titles pull out all of the stops to immerse the player in the game, in terms of physics, surround sound, graphical fidelity, motion controls, force-feedback, 3D really do put the player at the centre of the on-screen events. Playing through the first level of Killzone 2 is a lot more emotionally engaging than playing through that of Commander Keen, and that's a trend that's only going to continue in the future, as production values further approach photo-realism.

docdolittle wrote:

Some people are against violence a lil' in this thread

I don't think anybody is against violence in this thread. I count certain violent videogames amongst my favourites. I am against violence just for the sake of violence, however. Postal and Soldier of Fortune are examples of the puerile nonsense which bring nothing to the world in terms of creativity or storytelling. They are empty, vacuous games with nothing to say, and the medium would be better off without them.

thebman

You mention that a gamer will quickly break down a game into its core mechanics and effectively detach from the on-screen events. I agree that there's some truth in that. However, looking at how games have evolved in the last 25 years, you must agree that this isn't as easy as it once was. Blockbuster titles pull out all of the stops to immerse the player in the game, in terms of physics, surround sound, graphical fidelity, motion controls, force-feedback, 3D really do put the player at the centre of the on-screen events. Playing through the first level of Killzone 2 is a lot more emotionally engaging than playing through that of Commander Keen, and that's a trend that's only going to continue in the future, as production values further approach photo-realism.

I didn't actually find KZ2 to evoke much emotion at all TBH except maybe frustration at certain design decisions. I have a surround sound system and all. I stopped playing when I got to the palace.

I don't think anybody is against violence in this thread. I count certain violent videogames amongst my favourites. I am against violence just for the sake of violence, however. Postal and Soldier of Fortune are examples of the puerile nonsense which bring nothing to the world in terms of creativity or storytelling. They are empty, vacuous games with nothing to say, and the medium would be better off without them.

You could claim the same thing about every explicit sex scene in any movie ever pretty much. Most of the time a kiss an lying on the bed would be enough to get the point across with them waking up next to each other in the movies yet many movies have these scenes too. Many movies have pointless action scenes too. Many of them are very popular in the year they are released too but I guess they aren't interactive so receive a get out of jail free card from you.

Jazzy

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

zerg rushing (stracraft)

its clearly all about the SCV rush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen46qkZVNI

BlitzKrieg

the player must actively and consciously make decisions and take actions to perform often gruesome acts of violence.

I gotta run so I'll get a proper response when I get back, but a quick food for thought point.

The issue at hand is not the choice the player makes, its the tools at hand that the player has to make those choices.

That is the artifical barrier.

A player can say in Bioshock choose to kill a little sister or save her.

What is the tool to make that choice?

Its a menu, with a yes or no option. Influential sub concious link *GROUNDED*

In open gameplay consider the tools that a player has at his disposal to perform these acts, not the acts themselves. It is that constant touch that X button = decapatation that grounds the issue, not that there is decapatation.

There is no situation in video games, none where the player can make a two step leap of see bad guy, kill bad guy. Video games enforces a third step at all times. see bad guy, input control, kill bad guy.

Dont be at yourself

In open gameplay consider the tools that a player has at his disposal to perform these acts, not the acts themselves. It is that constant touch that X button = decapatation that grounds the issue, not that there is decapatation.

There is no situation in video games, none where the player can make a two step leap of see bad guy, kill bad guy. Video games enforces a third step at all times. see bad guy, input control, kill bad guy.

That may be the reality, but it's not what goes through the player's mind. They don't think "I'll press R1 here to kill this guy", they think "I'll kill this guy". For most gamers, the controls come naturally, the controller is an extension of the body, and doesn't enter the thought process on any conscious level when they're performing an action.

Sure, it's not the same as doing it in real life. But it's a pretty neat recreation of it.

And that's almost a side issue, anyway. However removed the actual action may be, the fact that the choice is completely in the player's hands has a significant weight.

thebman

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

That may be the reality, but it's not what goes through the player's mind. They don't think "I'll press R1 here to kill this guy", they think "I'll kill this guy".

Yes they do. Subconsciously this event has to occur and that is enough to ground it. Over time people don't have to consciously think to themselves these things but the action and therefore thought process must occur. I don't have to think about tying my shoe laces consciously but do you think my subconscious doesn't think out the steps? Do my fingers just move on their own? My brain still has to go through the steps even if I don't have to think about it with the "inner voice" part of the brain.

And that's almost a side issue, anyway. However removed the actual action may be, the fact that the choice is completely in the player's hands has a significant weight.

Significant weight on what?

Dont be at yourself

thebman wrote:

Many movies have pointless action scenes too. Many of them are very popular in the year they are released too but I guess they aren't interactive so receive a get out of jail free card from you.

Please don't make assumptions. Like videogames, there are plenty of violent movies I love, and plenty I loathe. The likes of Hostel are just as worthless as aforementioned videogames.

Yes they do. Subconsciously this event has to occur and that is enough to ground it. Over time people don't have to consciously think to themselves these things but the action and therefore thought process must occur. I don't have to think about tying my shoe laces consciously but do you think my subconscious doesn't think out the steps? Do my fingers just move on their own? My brain still has to go through the steps even if I don't have to think about it with the "inner voice" part of the brain.

You misunderstood. Obviously the actions of the player's body are triggered by their brain. However, the notion of "pressing X to shoot" isn't consciously on the player's mind. So while there is a disconnect, it's on the subconscious level.

Significant weight on what?

...the fact that the choice is completely in the player's hands is perhaps more important than the realism of the events depicted or in what manner the player interacts with the videogame.

Victor_M

hooradiation wrote: »

While the effect of violent video games and just how much responsibility developers have when making games that portray violence is a great debate, I'm struggling to see what the hell your beef is with this article.

It's factual, neutral and devoid of hysteria. Look, This is rampant hysteria and bullshit, the above isn't.

Reporting that a game which shows civilians getting shot might cause controversy isn't bad journalism, at all.

Are we really that thin skinned that anything which isn't sycophantic gushing praise for the games industry is automatically "anti video game propaganda"?

As for the violence in games debate, parents do need to actually pay attention to the damn ratings, but developers need to stop using that as an excuse to turn the gore all the way up to 11 for no damn reason.

This game is actually a case in point, i mean the developers have said that this part of the game can be skipped "without losing any of the story." If that is so, why even include it in the game?

If it's just for visceral thrills (as it seems to be) then frankly they deserve all the scorn they get.

The problem I have with this (and most of the Indo's articles for that matter) is that they have glossed over commenting on the games spectacular graphics, immersive unparalleled on and off line game-play and gone straight into a rant about the airport scene.
It's an 18 rated game, if every game, movie or TV show with 'inappropriate' (subjective term) scenes of violence were to get a big spread in the Indo, well they may as well just become a games and film slating newspaper. Why single out one scene from CODMW2 and not the opening scene from COD WaW which has loads of blood and guts, or Killzone which has the player wading through hordes of bad guys Rambo style.

Seriously, it's rated 18's so consenting adults can make a choice whether to go and purchase it or not, the Indo clearly have no interest in reviewing the game itself just achieving a quick sensationalist headline
Leaked footage from Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 showing the killing of innocent civilians looks likely to renew the debate on video game violence.

The leaked footage from the forthcoming Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 shows the player killing unarmed civilians with a group of terrorists at what looks like LAX airport in Los Angeles.

The scenes are likely to be criticised by family interest groups and media watchdogs and will possibly turn the developer and publisher into the latest lightning rods for video game controversy.


Honestly, family groups shouldn't be concerned as it's over 18's so wont affect children unless parents are being irresponsible, which is a completely different matter and media watch dogs, give me a break, if they had any power then the likes of SAW and the hill have eyes would never see the light of day.

thebman

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Please don't make assumptions. Like videogames, there are plenty of violent movies I love, and plenty I loathe. The likes of Hostel are just as worthless as aforementioned videogames.

Your the one making assumptions that violence in games is having a negative effect on people. Where is the evidence of this? It is clear it has no effect on the vast majority of people. You may find these games an movies worthless and not entertaining but that doesn't mean they have a negative effect on anyone or that others don't think differently.

Studies actually show that the reason people don't react as being horrified in horror movies is because they know the actions on screen are fake. They have done studies where people are shown fake an real murders that have been taped and people were horrified when shown the real murders but not when shown the fake ones even when they weren't told which was which. The conclusion is that our subconscious picks up on subtle movements that don't necessarily register in our self-conscious and that subconsciously we are aware that the actions are fake.

You misunderstood. Obviously the actions of the player's body are triggered by their brain. However, the notion of "pressing X to shoot" isn't consciously on the player's mind. So while there is a disconnect, it's on the subconscious level.

I don't think I misunderstand. The subconscious and conscious are both parts of the brain that interact with each other. It is one system even though we refer to the separate parts this way so if the person is aware of it subconsciously then they are aware of it. It is irrelevant whether it is a subconscious or conscious event that causes the awareness as it is all registered by the person.

Just because you don't constantly say, "its a game, its a game, its a game" to yourself consciously in your head does not mean that you are not aware it is a game. You don't have to consciously think of everything to be kept aware of it. The conscious and sub-conscious are not two separate systems.

...the fact that the choice is completely in the player's hands is perhaps more important than the realism of the events depicted or in what manner the player interacts with the videogame.

Yeah that still ignores that the person knows it is just all fake and essentially like playing with dolls. If they thought it was real or at any point they thought they had just killed someone, it would register completely different emotions. No sane person thinks, hey killing people in that game was fun, think I'll try it in real life to see if it is just as much fun. It is ridiculous to even suggest this IMO. People are aware of the difference and even kids are aware that that what happens on a screen isn't their actions even if they press buttons that control a character on screen.

hooradiation

Victor_M wrote: »

The problem I have with this (and most of the Indo's articles for that matter) is that they have glossed over commenting on the games spectacular graphics, immersive unparalleled on and off line game-play and gone straight into a rant about the airport scene.

Oh for crying out loud.

Look, if it's a detailed review of the game you're looking for, buy edge or whatever. The story wasn't about how OMGZAWESOME MW2 might be, it's that the scene in question might cause controversy. And they're right, it probably will.

It's not a rant, its reporting.


God i fucking hate 'gamers' some times.

Anything that isn't gushing praise is some kind of evil media hackjob, even when the piece in question is perfectly fine.

Victor_M

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh for crying out loud.

Look, if it's a detailed review of the game you're looking for, buy edge or whatever. The story wasn't about how OMGZAWESOME MW2 might be, it's that the scene in question might cause controversy. And they're right, it probably will.

It's not a rant, its reporting.


God i fucking hate 'gamers' some times.

Anything that isn't gushing praise is some kind of evil media hackjob, even when the piece in question is perfectly fine.

Hey easy there with the language and abuse.

I couldn't care less if the journalist liked the game or not, it's over 18's so for him to insult the intelligence of the prospective purchasers, if you don't like these sort of games don't buy it, if you are the sort of person who would be affected by this sort of violence you are most likely too young to be playing it. I seriously doubt anyone who is into this genre of game will even think twice about a scene like the one in the airport other than be impressed with the depth of the story line(and that's all it is) and the cool game play.

I'm not a 'gamer' by the way, not in the traditional sense anyway, but I am counting down the days until the release of the sequel to my favourite game of all time.

Xluna

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

That may be the reality, but it's not what goes through the player's mind. They don't think "I'll press R1 here to kill this guy", they think "I'll kill this guy". For most gamers, the controls come naturally, the controller is an extension of the body, and doesn't enter the thought process on any conscious level when they're performing an action.

Sure, it's not the same as doing it in real life. But it's a pretty neat recreation of it.

And that's almost a side issue, anyway. However removed the actual action may be, the fact that the choice is completely in the player's hands has a significant weight.

For goodness sakes man,there's more violence,genocide,homophobia,incest,racism,slavery and rape in the Old Testament than in the entire GTA series combined yet kids are encouraged to read it.

jaykhunter

lol, GTA is much more accessible and fun to play than the Bible is to read. Did you ever try read it? Useless stuff.

I actually think violence is satisfying in videogames, and actually assuages any bloodlust I have. If I'm amped up and ready to bust some heads, some headshots or chainsaw dismemberment will satisfy that urge.

I think videogames are fine, the rub is that parents should educate their kids on morals, separation of videogame and reality, that kind of crap. As long as the children know what is the 'right' thing to do, it shouldn't matter what they find enjoyable.

I really don't think this sort of thing is a problem in Europe but it seems to be a mass-hysteria epidemic in America, and more recently Australia, what with their banning of games and that.

Since having a "maturity" rating is an objective standpoint, the best "the games industry" should do so they're not accountable is that PEGI ratings. I believe properly educated children and older are capable of enjoying M-rated games without it effecting their personality, because they can separate reality from a videogame. But since parents are UNWILLING to pick up the slack, or actually f--king take care of their kids, ya just gotta restrict excessive violence/sex/naughty behaviour in games to adults.

Xluna

jaykhunter wrote: »

lol, GTA is much more accessible and fun to play than the Bible is to read. Did you ever try read it? Useless stuff.

I've read it in bits and pieces. The Old Testament is certainly no guide to live a moral life and some the things are shocking. A few interesting stories though. The new testament is a lot better morality wise but I still don't believe in it.

TomCo

RobertFoster wrote: »

Why has no one ever made a concentration camp game along the style of Theme Hospital?

docdolittle

TomCo wrote: »

Is it bad that I laughed?

thebman

docdolittle wrote: »

Is it bad that I laughed?

lol no

Its transport tycoon rigged up to look like that anyway

I doubt the mod actually exists.

Overheal

CNN is breaking news about a tragic school related gang rape. And the analyst they bring on to talk about it? He starts going off about Left4Dead (yes, the Zombie game) as an example of why kids have no idea what relationships are about?



The problem clearly is the mainstream media is incredibly clueless about gaming. I mean. Clueless. They played pong in college. Thats it. And games are still their favorite scapegoat. Any name they can pull out of a hat and point a finger at it. Gang Rape? Oh dear. You shouldnt have let those kids play a zombie game. the horror.

thebman

Overheal wrote: »

CNN is breaking news about a tragic school related gang rape. And the analyst they bring on to talk about it? He starts going off about Left4Dead (yes, the Zombie game) as an example of why kids have no idea what relationships are about?



The problem clearly is the mainstream media is incredibly clueless about gaming. I mean. Clueless. They played pong in college. Thats it. And games are still their favorite scapegoat. Any name they can pull out of a hat and point a finger at it. Gang Rape? Oh dear. You shouldnt have let those kids play a zombie game. the horror.

Its not their clueless, its that gaming is a threat to TV.

It is a conscious assault on a new media that threatens their bottom line.

5uspect

Well it's a mixture of clueless parents who think game = toy and a media who still cannot understand the internet and the influence of gaming.

This website began as a community for Quake players. THe development of culture on the internet has a lot to do with gaming culture since they've developed hand in hand.

The kind of person who works in the media is probably not of a gaming persuasion. Lets face they're Arts students who couldn't tell the difference between a blog and a message forum. They think twitter and facebook is what everyone on the internet is doing and that only a few nerdy perverts play mindless violent games.

Since they've never played such games, perhaps only watched someone else play, they have no idea of the sense of achievement, adventure, fear, joy, frustration, fear or fun that comes from solving a difficult puzzle, surviving a difficult mission, beating a friend online or working together to beat strangers.

They're on the outside looking in and all they see is people engrossed in a medium they don't understand. Their attempts at getting involved in new media fail horribly with rubbish like you see on Sky News where they keep hyping up some youtube video for an hour before showing it. It's like watching your granddad trying to breakdance.

So the new CoD game pushes the boundaries with new ways to look at terrorism, the new Left 4 Dead game ups the levels of gore amd the new Mass Effect game has more cheesy out of focus bare arse.

Parents are horrified because their kids want an Xbox for Xmas, cos it just a toy, and these perverts are putting this filth on it! Its as if the parents expect the console to have a single age rating and not have to look at individual games.

As regards as assault on TV, that's also true. Games offer far more bang for your buck.

Leiva

5uspect wrote: »

Well it's a mixture of clueless parents who think game = toy and a media who still cannot understand the internet and the influence of gaming.

This website began as a community for Quake players. THe development of culture on the internet has a lot to do with gaming culture since they've developed hand in hand.

The kind of person who works in the media is probably not of a gaming persuasion. Lets face they're Arts students who couldn't tell the difference between a blog and a message forum. They think twitter and facebook is what everyone on the internet is doing and that only a few nerdy perverts play mindless violent games.

Since they've never played such games, perhaps only watched someone else play, they have no idea of the sense of achievement, adventure, fear, joy, frustration, fear or fun that comes from solving a difficult puzzle, surviving a difficult mission, beating a friend online or working together to beat strangers.

They're on the outside looking in and all they see is people engrossed in a medium they don't understand. Their attempts at getting involved in new media fail horribly with rubbish like you see on Sky News where they keep hyping up some youtube video for an hour before showing it. It's like watching your granddad trying to breakdance.

So the new CoD game pushes the boundaries with new ways to look at terrorism, the new Left 4 Dead game ups the levels of gore amd the new Mass Effect game has more cheesy out of focus bare arse.

Parents are horrified because their kids want an Xbox for Xmas, cos it just a toy, and these perverts are putting this filth on it! Its as if the parents expect the console to have a single age rating and not have to look at individual games.

As regards as assault on TV, that's also true. Games offer far more bang for your buck.

This post sums it up for me (end of)

Parents need to educate themselfs on games .
Gaming media should only comment on gaming matters.
Everyone else who does not know fully what they are on about again should educate themselves and make a more informed response in the papers etc.

M.

5uspect

Looking back it was a bit of a rambly post.

I don't think the Gaming media alone should comment on gaming matters.
It would be nice if all media outlets were able to give honest balanced discussion of a wide range of matters. Unfortunately what happens is so poor they shouldn't have bothered.

Does anyone here read Bad Science?
Its crazy to read the depths some rags go to twist and distort the facts to make shocking headlines. Gaming gets this too to a lesser extent but the behaviour is the same.
Hillary Clinton banging on about "Getting points" for shooting cops in GTA and similar misinformation for example.

Science like all nerdy exploits is difficult and scary for many "ordinary" people to understand. Newspapers don't help with their often sensational headlines. They're far more concerned with sales than educating. They certainly don't show any signs of educating themselves.