the lost and the damned and ethics
by Orion Elenzil · in General Game Discussion · 05/04/2009 (11:05 am) · 75 replies
moved from a blog post.
as mike perry has pointed out, these discussions tend towards flame-wars and i'll admit that my post is itself a bit inflammatory, so i'll just uh remind everyone to try to keep their head above the emotional waters here.
------------------------------
just a quick note on The Lost and the Damned.
i live in San Francisco's Mission district, which last year suffered several motorcycle-gang related murders. just amongst my circle of friends (which let me assure you contains not a single gang member nor probably anyone who even knows a gang member) one friend had a brutal killing in the apartment just below her, and one witnessed a dead body shot across from a popular local bar, both gang-related incidences. as i recall there was a rash of six or so related killings around that time, and at times word was actually "out on the street" along the lines of "avoid the mission tonight; shit's going down". (in that particular case, shit did not in fact go down, but you get an idea for how the community had been affected)
then just a few months ago rockstar games releases TLATD, and up go the huge posters advertising this game. so now, in the mission district in san francisco, you can stand on a corner where a dude was literally gunned down in gang violence just a few months before and look across the street to the huge posters at the bottom of this post.
these and other large posters appeared next to grocery stores, outside bars, on busy streets, on quiet streets, all throughout this neighborhood which is full of young people, old people, families, children, and computer programmers.
now i know this is a very unpopular stance amongst gamers,
but seriously, wtf ? here we have a case where the exact violence which rocked a community one month is commodified and presented as a cool new "rockstar" game the next. the gaming community loves to take the stance that glorifying violence doesn't lead to a societal increase in actual violence, but i call bullshit.
.jpg)
.jpg)
as mike perry has pointed out, these discussions tend towards flame-wars and i'll admit that my post is itself a bit inflammatory, so i'll just uh remind everyone to try to keep their head above the emotional waters here.
------------------------------
just a quick note on The Lost and the Damned.
i live in San Francisco's Mission district, which last year suffered several motorcycle-gang related murders. just amongst my circle of friends (which let me assure you contains not a single gang member nor probably anyone who even knows a gang member) one friend had a brutal killing in the apartment just below her, and one witnessed a dead body shot across from a popular local bar, both gang-related incidences. as i recall there was a rash of six or so related killings around that time, and at times word was actually "out on the street" along the lines of "avoid the mission tonight; shit's going down". (in that particular case, shit did not in fact go down, but you get an idea for how the community had been affected)
then just a few months ago rockstar games releases TLATD, and up go the huge posters advertising this game. so now, in the mission district in san francisco, you can stand on a corner where a dude was literally gunned down in gang violence just a few months before and look across the street to the huge posters at the bottom of this post.
these and other large posters appeared next to grocery stores, outside bars, on busy streets, on quiet streets, all throughout this neighborhood which is full of young people, old people, families, children, and computer programmers.
now i know this is a very unpopular stance amongst gamers,
but seriously, wtf ? here we have a case where the exact violence which rocked a community one month is commodified and presented as a cool new "rockstar" game the next. the gaming community loves to take the stance that glorifying violence doesn't lead to a societal increase in actual violence, but i call bullshit.
About the author
#42
05/04/2009 (6:44 pm)
Quote:Collecting signatures won't help;In San Francisco, that's the only way to get things done. (well, that and calling the radio stations) The polititions in San Fran. are scared to death of offending anyone, that if anyone IS offended, they change laws.
#43
Fy, cashing in on the same idea, over and over again, changing the name of the city and the vehicle from under the hero's but is lame if not plain stupid from a company with enough resources to invest in something new if not better.
You could disagree with this as much as you can and I would know you are defending the game and ultimately yourself; otherwise, since when killing people (for real or not)is entertainment?
Oh, yes, I forgot. Since forever.
05/04/2009 (7:18 pm)
The crossover is when some tasteless buggers put posters of a so called game with a theme that matches a series of murders in the neighborhood where the blood was just drying away. Fy, cashing in on the same idea, over and over again, changing the name of the city and the vehicle from under the hero's but is lame if not plain stupid from a company with enough resources to invest in something new if not better.
You could disagree with this as much as you can and I would know you are defending the game and ultimately yourself; otherwise, since when killing people (for real or not)is entertainment?
Oh, yes, I forgot. Since forever.
#44
I totally don't agree with you. This games are made for the same reason i play them - fun. I would never pick up a gun and shoot someone but sometimes to get away from everyday stress i like to sit down at the PC and shoot zombies, aliens, whatever. It's fun and get's me out of my everyday routine, releasing stress.
I never had games published or sold so saying that what i say is meant for that is total bull. Violence sells because it's the ultimate escapism for people who wouldn't be violent in real life.
Of course in cases like orion, sometimes the entertainment gets a little too close to home fr confort if you get my meaning.
05/04/2009 (7:19 pm)
@aparatusI totally don't agree with you. This games are made for the same reason i play them - fun. I would never pick up a gun and shoot someone but sometimes to get away from everyday stress i like to sit down at the PC and shoot zombies, aliens, whatever. It's fun and get's me out of my everyday routine, releasing stress.
I never had games published or sold so saying that what i say is meant for that is total bull. Violence sells because it's the ultimate escapism for people who wouldn't be violent in real life.
Of course in cases like orion, sometimes the entertainment gets a little too close to home fr confort if you get my meaning.
#45
You don't need to disagree with me, or you could, forever, I won't change my mind nor try to change yours. I'll say it one more time tonight: since when the subject of killing, this theme is entertainment and fun?
05/04/2009 (7:22 pm)
How i like that; if is not close to home, is ok; if the sweat shops are not in sight, we can only enjoy buying cheap shoes. You don't need to disagree with me, or you could, forever, I won't change my mind nor try to change yours. I'll say it one more time tonight: since when the subject of killing, this theme is entertainment and fun?
#46
Ever noticrd as when passing by an accident people can't help but look and see??
Ever noticed how people stand hours in front of a TV watching news from some war or conflict far away?
Or as they flock to the nearest theater when the latest explosion and bullet fest film comes out?
Since when violence is entertainment? since the stone age. Although the killing in hunt was done for survivall and food, the killing was celebrated.
From the beggining violence and entertainment have been connected in mans mind. Is that a good thing? No, but i prefer if people would do all their shooting and killing in virtual space.
05/04/2009 (7:27 pm)
Quote:since when killing people (for real or not)is entertainment?
Oh, yes, I forgot. Since forever
Ever noticrd as when passing by an accident people can't help but look and see??
Ever noticed how people stand hours in front of a TV watching news from some war or conflict far away?
Or as they flock to the nearest theater when the latest explosion and bullet fest film comes out?
Since when violence is entertainment? since the stone age. Although the killing in hunt was done for survivall and food, the killing was celebrated.
From the beggining violence and entertainment have been connected in mans mind. Is that a good thing? No, but i prefer if people would do all their shooting and killing in virtual space.
#47
There is, however a whole range of posibilities.
The one introduced by Orion, from my understanding, is beyond the ridiculous "play this today, kill someone tomorrow", and far away the simplistic "games are nothing more than fun, and hence isolated from any social impact".
05/04/2009 (7:32 pm)
The discussion remains polarized into this stereotyped postures.There is, however a whole range of posibilities.
The one introduced by Orion, from my understanding, is beyond the ridiculous "play this today, kill someone tomorrow", and far away the simplistic "games are nothing more than fun, and hence isolated from any social impact".
#48
But banning it from games is not the answer.
Violent video games are aimed at a maure audience, not kids with no distiction of right and wrong.
Sudoku is great - but the most complicated ones will only give me more stress.
Instead of flamimg video games you should be talking about some kids (15 - 23 years old) who have fun learning and handling real guns - ever heard of US Army's ROTC program???
Kids & real guns = truble.
Kids & properly parental assisted video games = fun
simple math
05/04/2009 (7:40 pm)
I don't disagree with you that violence is bad.But banning it from games is not the answer.
Violent video games are aimed at a maure audience, not kids with no distiction of right and wrong.
Sudoku is great - but the most complicated ones will only give me more stress.
Instead of flamimg video games you should be talking about some kids (15 - 23 years old) who have fun learning and handling real guns - ever heard of US Army's ROTC program???
Kids & real guns = truble.
Kids & properly parental assisted video games = fun
simple math
#49
Not isolated - they are part of the life of the gamer - like i said they can serve as inspiration for the type of violence.
I'm just saying the problem is not the violence in the game but the lack of parental guidence to younger gamers. And even then, most young gamers that play M rated games won't go on a killing rampage.
There's more to this than just that.
Aparatus is talking like violence in video games is guilty of violence in the world - but violence exists since man exists.
Is that a good thing? Again, no.
05/04/2009 (7:45 pm)
@NovackNot isolated - they are part of the life of the gamer - like i said they can serve as inspiration for the type of violence.
I'm just saying the problem is not the violence in the game but the lack of parental guidence to younger gamers. And even then, most young gamers that play M rated games won't go on a killing rampage.
There's more to this than just that.
Aparatus is talking like violence in video games is guilty of violence in the world - but violence exists since man exists.
Is that a good thing? Again, no.
#50
Edit #2: No one needs to hear about that crap I wrote, even though it is very illustrative of what we're forgetting about ourselves.
The Young Marines program probably saved my life (definitely my sanity), and I have had some of the kids from the program approach me years later and thank me for involving them because it saved theirs. And while I can't say that everyone who gets involved in an organization are shining examples of what the organization tries to promote, show me a group of perfectly adjusted humans, and I'll show you a group of perfect liars.
Math is never so simple as anyone makes it out to be.
Edit: Forgot to mention that much of this occurred before the widespread use of video games (back when kids ran out of the house to play)
05/04/2009 (8:11 pm)
Quote:Instead of flamimg video games you should be talking about some kids (15 - 23 years old) who have fun learning and handling real guns - ever heard of US Army's ROTC program???
Edit #2: No one needs to hear about that crap I wrote, even though it is very illustrative of what we're forgetting about ourselves.
The Young Marines program probably saved my life (definitely my sanity), and I have had some of the kids from the program approach me years later and thank me for involving them because it saved theirs. And while I can't say that everyone who gets involved in an organization are shining examples of what the organization tries to promote, show me a group of perfectly adjusted humans, and I'll show you a group of perfect liars.
Math is never so simple as anyone makes it out to be.
Edit: Forgot to mention that much of this occurred before the widespread use of video games (back when kids ran out of the house to play)
#51
Absolutely. There is a complete nonsense in protesting while ignoring the fact that games are rated, and hence the parents could take control on the situation with that simple tool. Just like our parents did with some movies at the time. The problem that side remains in the simple fact that the past 2 generations or so, grew up without time from its parents.
And yet again, that doesnt cover other types of violence, like games that by design or by accident, tend to be addictive in ways that are not healthy or benefitial for people (just to name one).
The ESRB ratio will never free us from some responsability.
05/04/2009 (8:49 pm)
@Luis:Quote:I'm just saying the problem is not the violence in the game but the lack of parental guidence to younger gamers.
Absolutely. There is a complete nonsense in protesting while ignoring the fact that games are rated, and hence the parents could take control on the situation with that simple tool. Just like our parents did with some movies at the time. The problem that side remains in the simple fact that the past 2 generations or so, grew up without time from its parents.
And yet again, that doesnt cover other types of violence, like games that by design or by accident, tend to be addictive in ways that are not healthy or benefitial for people (just to name one).
The ESRB ratio will never free us from some responsability.
#52
Ever hear the term "if it aint broke, don't fix it"? It's a popular idea that people love, so until people stop loving it and paying money for it, it will not be stupid or lame. You might think it's a stupid idea, but for the business that is selling millions of copies, and those that are buying them, it's a great idea. Business = provide something that people want, in exchange for what you want.
Yes, I love the argument that "if you disagree with me you must be guilty". Of course your opinion is the only one that can possibly be valid. That's always a winner.
So you would never contribute to anything related to violence in games I suppose. You know, like maybe:
Is it just somebody else's violence that your infallible opinion applies to? Or does "deathmatch" mean you meet in the middle of the level and play Sudoku until one of you keels over dead from boredom?
Yes, since forever. I would say it's much better to kill pixel people on a computer screen than real people in a stadium with a sword.
The games industry bears no responsibility for changing human nature. The best we can do is provide a means of channeling that nature in a way that doesn't actually hurt anybody.
05/04/2009 (11:17 pm)
Quote:
Fy, cashing in on the same idea, over and over again, changing the name of the city and the vehicle from under the hero's but is lame if not plain stupid from a company with enough resources to invest in something new if not better.
Ever hear the term "if it aint broke, don't fix it"? It's a popular idea that people love, so until people stop loving it and paying money for it, it will not be stupid or lame. You might think it's a stupid idea, but for the business that is selling millions of copies, and those that are buying them, it's a great idea. Business = provide something that people want, in exchange for what you want.
Quote:
You could disagree with this as much as you can and I would know you are defending the game and ultimately yourself
Yes, I love the argument that "if you disagree with me you must be guilty". Of course your opinion is the only one that can possibly be valid. That's always a winner.
So you would never contribute to anything related to violence in games I suppose. You know, like maybe:
Quote:
I'm currently creating a brand new FPS Kit with levels based on the Sronghold theme as well as one of my own we're calling 'Burg.' The level based on Stronghold (working name 'Warrior Camp') is set after the Orcs have taken control over the area and established a camp."
"Burg is a Victorian, steampunk / industrial deathmatch demo, complete with oddly named (and weird looking) weapons, such as the Sniper Rifle Imperceptus and the BMFG Maximus, a steampowered cannon."
Is it just somebody else's violence that your infallible opinion applies to? Or does "deathmatch" mean you meet in the middle of the level and play Sudoku until one of you keels over dead from boredom?
Quote:
otherwise, since when killing peole (for real or not)is entertainment?
Oh, yes, I forgot. Since forever.
Yes, since forever. I would say it's much better to kill pixel people on a computer screen than real people in a stadium with a sword.
The games industry bears no responsibility for changing human nature. The best we can do is provide a means of channeling that nature in a way that doesn't actually hurt anybody.
#53
The whole thing of "human nature" is pretty subjective, in the plain sense that it does not necesarily exist.
What we actually *know* there is, is a Human Choice.
The difference, far from rethoric, is essential to understanding that you cannot ever take away the responsability for the world you live on, from yourself.
Now thats a choice I hope you think again, not to take any responsabily for the games you made and how you finally affect people. We are managing a media, we have a power like hardly ever before a bunch of nobodys had, and as such, there is an inherent responsability.
And please, Im not necesarily talking of killing people, read my posts on this thread for more references on what I mean with responsabilty.
05/04/2009 (11:46 pm)
One bit of a correction Gerald.Quote:The games industry bears no responsibility for changing human nature. The best we can do is provide a means of channeling that nature in a way that doesn't actually hurt anybody.
The whole thing of "human nature" is pretty subjective, in the plain sense that it does not necesarily exist.
What we actually *know* there is, is a Human Choice.
The difference, far from rethoric, is essential to understanding that you cannot ever take away the responsability for the world you live on, from yourself.
Now thats a choice I hope you think again, not to take any responsabily for the games you made and how you finally affect people. We are managing a media, we have a power like hardly ever before a bunch of nobodys had, and as such, there is an inherent responsability.
And please, Im not necesarily talking of killing people, read my posts on this thread for more references on what I mean with responsabilty.
#54
Would not an outright ban on violent computer games also call for a ban on violence in TV, movies,books, music and toys? Could that not lead to even deeper thought policing, such as no longer allowing the angry color red? I see a parallel with what was done to smoking tobacco, once that fight was won (and most everyone seems to hate smokers now), they are taking the same arguments to fight fatty foods!
I am working on a Major in Psycholinguistics and along the way i have learned quite a bit about what makes humans believe and act (say and think) the way they do. Exterior forces have far less effect on us then a parent/peer/hero/self who originally allowed poor behavior or even rewarded it. Once we are rewarded for thinking/acting in some way we are more probable to make that a part of who we are and expand upon it. A Sociopath at some point in their life made a conscious decision to step outside the bounds of normal society, no game/book/movie MADE them.
05/05/2009 (12:03 am)
Someone was on a debate team...Would not an outright ban on violent computer games also call for a ban on violence in TV, movies,books, music and toys? Could that not lead to even deeper thought policing, such as no longer allowing the angry color red? I see a parallel with what was done to smoking tobacco, once that fight was won (and most everyone seems to hate smokers now), they are taking the same arguments to fight fatty foods!
I am working on a Major in Psycholinguistics and along the way i have learned quite a bit about what makes humans believe and act (say and think) the way they do. Exterior forces have far less effect on us then a parent/peer/hero/self who originally allowed poor behavior or even rewarded it. Once we are rewarded for thinking/acting in some way we are more probable to make that a part of who we are and expand upon it. A Sociopath at some point in their life made a conscious decision to step outside the bounds of normal society, no game/book/movie MADE them.
#55
Incorrect. We know that all animals, including humans, have instincts that are programmed in. They can be trained out of it, but nature and evolutionary instincts are certainly real.
I'm not suggesting that we have no responsibility. I would say that making a game that blatantly promotes racial violence or intolerance, for instance, is unacceptable. I DO NOT think that the games industry has a responsibility to shield people from the cold reality of life in an attempt to be a surrogate parent. That would probably have the ultimate effect of turning people away from games as a form of entertainment.
I do think that there needs to be some effort to make it clear that the games are only fictional entertainment, but "dont do this at home". And I think for the most part, games like the GTA series do that.
I did read your other posts, but I can't say that I really understand what you're talking about in regards to addictive behavior. Trying to make games that are not addictive is tantamount to trying to make games that are only fun for a little while, which doesn't strike me as a useful goal.
05/05/2009 (12:09 am)
Quote:
The whole thing of "human nature" is pretty subjective, in the plain sense that it does not necesarily exist.
What we actually *know* there is, is a Human Choice.
Incorrect. We know that all animals, including humans, have instincts that are programmed in. They can be trained out of it, but nature and evolutionary instincts are certainly real.
Quote:
The difference, far from rethoric, is essential to understanding that you cannot ever take away the responsability for the world you live on, from yourself.
I'm not suggesting that we have no responsibility. I would say that making a game that blatantly promotes racial violence or intolerance, for instance, is unacceptable. I DO NOT think that the games industry has a responsibility to shield people from the cold reality of life in an attempt to be a surrogate parent. That would probably have the ultimate effect of turning people away from games as a form of entertainment.
I do think that there needs to be some effort to make it clear that the games are only fictional entertainment, but "dont do this at home". And I think for the most part, games like the GTA series do that.
Quote:
And please, Im not necesarily talking of killing people, read my posts on this thread for more references on what I mean with responsabilty.
I did read your other posts, but I can't say that I really understand what you're talking about in regards to addictive behavior. Trying to make games that are not addictive is tantamount to trying to make games that are only fun for a little while, which doesn't strike me as a useful goal.
#56
I tottally agree with you in your middle-post statements.
But,
So, please tell me, your useful goal is to retain your customer, a 10 years old boy, or a middle aged man raising that kid, twelve to twenty hours a day in front of an LCD playing your game? Because thats whats happening in China and Korea, and the rest of the worlds is a bit more lucky, with kiddos playing mmogs at home or cybercafes *only* 6 hours a day.
@Caylo, the "debate team" thing was for me?
In any case, here are my thoughts.
On the escalation on censorship, those are boisterous waters you are entering. FOX vomiting speechs on tv from white-married-texan-christian-republican-hockey moms about how bad this evil games are, without fearing the consequences of the very censorship, shows that is not equal for everyone, because they are the censors. The lobby. The Inquisitor rarely is questioned...
So, in a way, your point is valid, and I agree, and in other, is a delicate moment to feel that safe.
And regarding the Sociopath example, I couldnt agree more. However, those parents, get affected by society, right? The Chicken or the egg? In any case, we cannot stop one side, while ignoring the other...
--
Ok, is almos 5 AM , time to go to bed...
05/05/2009 (12:38 am)
@Gerald, your comment on human nature turned to the rethoric I was trying to avoid. Supposing then, that the human nature IS there (which nor cientifically nor philosophically is determined if its predominant over our consciousness), in any case, you cannot define what "human nature" aims to, and thats the point.I tottally agree with you in your middle-post statements.
But,
Quote:Trying to make games that are not addictive is tantamount to trying to make games that are only fun for a little while, which doesn't strike me as a useful goal.
So, please tell me, your useful goal is to retain your customer, a 10 years old boy, or a middle aged man raising that kid, twelve to twenty hours a day in front of an LCD playing your game? Because thats whats happening in China and Korea, and the rest of the worlds is a bit more lucky, with kiddos playing mmogs at home or cybercafes *only* 6 hours a day.
@Caylo, the "debate team" thing was for me?
In any case, here are my thoughts.
On the escalation on censorship, those are boisterous waters you are entering. FOX vomiting speechs on tv from white-married-texan-christian-republican-hockey moms about how bad this evil games are, without fearing the consequences of the very censorship, shows that is not equal for everyone, because they are the censors. The lobby. The Inquisitor rarely is questioned...
So, in a way, your point is valid, and I agree, and in other, is a delicate moment to feel that safe.
And regarding the Sociopath example, I couldnt agree more. However, those parents, get affected by society, right? The Chicken or the egg? In any case, we cannot stop one side, while ignoring the other...
--
Ok, is almos 5 AM , time to go to bed...
#57
My useful goal is to make games that people want to play in an attempt to entertain them. Instilling moderation is the responsibility of parents, peers, and educational systems. If you're a beer company, making beer that tastes like crap will probably cause people to drink less of your beer, but it's not a substitute for parents, peers and teachers teaching kids that alcohol abuse is dangerous. And it will punish people who do know how to enjoy your beer in moderation.
It's not the responsibility of the games industry to dictate to people how much they should be playing games. It's not my goal for people to spend that much time playing games, but I also don't see a reason that I should be telling them not to, or trying to find ways to make my game less enjoyable so that they don't.
I spent a great deal of 10-12 hour days playing video games and I don't think it was all that bad for me, except insofar as I wasn't getting much exercise during that time. But I probably wouldn't have been getting exercise if I wasn't playing the games either. There are certainly much worse ways they can be spending their time. Making a boring video game doesn't mean they're going to be doing their homework instead.
Do we, as an industry, have a substantial platform in which we can try to influence people? Sure. But there's a reason we have that platform. Our industry is ENTERTAINMENT, and we have a broad audience because we entertain. When we try to cross the line from entertainment to social big brother, we will probably lose that platform. And in my opinion, we will be betraying the people who gave it to us. They come to us for entertainment, not rearing.
05/05/2009 (1:07 am)
Quote:
So, please tell me, your useful goal is to retain your customer, a 10 years old boy, or a middle aged man raising that kid, twelve to twenty hours a day in front of an LCD playing your game? Because thats whats happening in China and Korea, and the rest of the worls is a bit better, with kiddos playing mmogs at home or cybercafes *only* 6 hours a day.
My useful goal is to make games that people want to play in an attempt to entertain them. Instilling moderation is the responsibility of parents, peers, and educational systems. If you're a beer company, making beer that tastes like crap will probably cause people to drink less of your beer, but it's not a substitute for parents, peers and teachers teaching kids that alcohol abuse is dangerous. And it will punish people who do know how to enjoy your beer in moderation.
It's not the responsibility of the games industry to dictate to people how much they should be playing games. It's not my goal for people to spend that much time playing games, but I also don't see a reason that I should be telling them not to, or trying to find ways to make my game less enjoyable so that they don't.
I spent a great deal of 10-12 hour days playing video games and I don't think it was all that bad for me, except insofar as I wasn't getting much exercise during that time. But I probably wouldn't have been getting exercise if I wasn't playing the games either. There are certainly much worse ways they can be spending their time. Making a boring video game doesn't mean they're going to be doing their homework instead.
Do we, as an industry, have a substantial platform in which we can try to influence people? Sure. But there's a reason we have that platform. Our industry is ENTERTAINMENT, and we have a broad audience because we entertain. When we try to cross the line from entertainment to social big brother, we will probably lose that platform. And in my opinion, we will be betraying the people who gave it to us. They come to us for entertainment, not rearing.
#58
05/05/2009 (2:48 am)
Yeah. Imho, GTA was, is and will be a sick game. When you will see me working on titles that mirror real life the way GTA so subversively does, we can talk.
#59
You can't say you're game violence is different from GTA's because it's not imitating real life. Specially after coming at me saying violence is never entertainment. Now you change to it is as long as doesn't imitate life?
I'm with Gerald on this one. If we decide to be a game developer we are entering an ENTERTAINMENT industry - not and EDUCATION industry. Our job is to give our audience something they will enjoy not something that will attempt to make them usefull members of society. Although this last one would be a good target, ultimatly it would fail - you can't teach a kid violence is bad when he never sees you - kids learn by example - that's why it's the teachers/parents/familly/community's job to raise children - not the game industry's job
05/05/2009 (3:14 am)
@AparatusYou can't say you're game violence is different from GTA's because it's not imitating real life. Specially after coming at me saying violence is never entertainment. Now you change to it is as long as doesn't imitate life?
I'm with Gerald on this one. If we decide to be a game developer we are entering an ENTERTAINMENT industry - not and EDUCATION industry. Our job is to give our audience something they will enjoy not something that will attempt to make them usefull members of society. Although this last one would be a good target, ultimatly it would fail - you can't teach a kid violence is bad when he never sees you - kids learn by example - that's why it's the teachers/parents/familly/community's job to raise children - not the game industry's job
#60
I can't stand these buggers who squeeze whatever they have to squeeze for another and another dollar, over and over and over again. And you know how they do it? Look it up and wonder why in the States and elsewhere jobs in this industry are outsourced in countries where you get paid 20 cents an hour or less.
For god's sake, decency is not something they can brag about and if not, somebody has to teach them that; There are fare more violent games out there but you don't see public display and marketing like that every day; but companies don't care, now do they?
05/05/2009 (3:18 am)
And Gerald, let's face the reality here: big companies cashing in for pure profit using the same old (yeah, good idea, why change it?) hurting feelings around and spreading violence in a way that is so frightening, do so on your expense and mine. Make them fantasy characters damn it and I'll understand but look around the States and see if violence is an issue or not.I can't stand these buggers who squeeze whatever they have to squeeze for another and another dollar, over and over and over again. And you know how they do it? Look it up and wonder why in the States and elsewhere jobs in this industry are outsourced in countries where you get paid 20 cents an hour or less.
For god's sake, decency is not something they can brag about and if not, somebody has to teach them that; There are fare more violent games out there but you don't see public display and marketing like that every day; but companies don't care, now do they?
Torque Owner Gerald Fishel
Development Ninja
No worries. Nothing wrong with a little snarky :)
I would go out on a limb and say, probably none. When I was a kid I never took a message from a billboard. Honestly the only billboard I actually remember is the one with the dog pulling down the shorts of the Coppertone girl. :( I can't say that I got any message from that, though, other than I should buy some suntan lotion.
I think people read way too much into what "message" things are sending to people. Kids aren't out there looking for life lessons from Rockstar Games ads.
I'm sure some violence is triggered by video games, but I saw a guy get shanked in a pool hall over an argument of whether Chevy is better than Ford. The trigger is usually unrelated to the underlying problem.
No. It's this way because people enjoy these kinds of games, which means there is a demand for these kinds of games, and people in the entertainment business are in the business of providing things that people enjoy and that are in demand, in exchange for their money. That's why it's called entertainment. If people wanted to play Sudoku, they would play Sudoku. Rockstar isn't stopping them.