Forums > News > Surprise of the year
nullnullnull (1463) on 5/21/2006 3:09 PM · Permalink · Report
The Washington Post is reporting "shock and anger" over the Columbine Video Game. Wow. Next thing we will read is that the sun will shine and people have to pay taxes. Does anyone else think this "story" is a non issue?
Terrence Bosky (5397) on 5/21/2006 3:28 PM · Permalink · Report
The problem is (understatement), people don't understand the difference between commercial games and games made by some guy on his home computer. Like the outrage over JFK Reloaded. People thought that was a game available in stores, produced by "the industry."
Of course the kicker is, if it weren't for these stories of outrage, we'd never hear about these games.
Indra was here (20760) on 5/21/2006 4:01 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
The sun shines? Ahhh, noooo I'm burning!!!
Thousands of years of human existence and society is still a consisted of a bunch of idiots (like myself) who are shocked at almost anything that has happened millions of types before but appear different little hybrids.
A video game based on school shooting shocking? We have video games that simulate thousands to millions of people dying while we the player enjoy it (read=war games). Sure we enjoy it (or simply don't care) when other people across the globe die while if it happens to us, we "act" shocked.
And since it takes usually at least 25 years of living (some few are gifted with wisdom earlier) to actually realize your brain works and develop a personality that does not entirely mimic the doctrines of society or anti-society, we shall continue to continue the loop of civilized stupidty since by then we're just to dang busy making money to make ends meet, enjoying the benefits and hardships of family living and social pressures and in our free time critizise the stupidity of civilization (like myself), when all we need to do to identify the idiots of our generation is merely just by looking in the mirror.
I feel better already. :)
Luis Silva (13444) on 5/21/2006 4:46 PM · Permalink · Report
Considering there are literally hundreds of games glorifying war (one of them is even sponsored by the US Army) I find interesting that a tiny game coded by a couple of people can cause such an uproar.
Please don't let them know that there are games where the player can choose Nazi Germany, with swastikas, Göring and all.
Diogo Ribeiro (332) on 5/21/2006 7:17 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm absolutely shocked, SHOCKED, with this newsbit. How can anyone still try to create games with RPG Maker? The humanity.
PCGamer77 (3158) on 5/21/2006 7:38 PM · Permalink · Report
I'd like to agree with Mr. Bosky, along with the other interesting posts on this, but I don't think I can...
I doubt that many people out there will ever really know or care that there is a difference between "the industry" and independent developers. If it's distributed widely, looks like a game, and is called a game, then it's going to be viewed as a problem for the whole medium of "games." We may not like it, but I think we're going to have to live with it.
As for the comparison to war games, they are obviously very different from this Columbine garbage. War games feature adult, uniformed military personnel fighting for a cause that can be considered just by a significant number of reasonable people (even if they are wrong in their belief.) There is no way you can consider kids shooting down unarmed schoolmates just. It certainly isn't challenging or fun, either, which we should be thankful for, since it means that the vast majority of people will see no reason to bother with such a vulgar and tasteless "game."
Bottom line: I think we Mobygamers need to make it clear that we find this kind of stuff repulsive, and try to put this in the context of a generally harmless medium, rather than just reflexively call it a non-issue.
Sciere (923814) on 5/21/2006 8:19 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Have you read the article? It's rather a reenactment of the Columbine incident, and, as the designer states, with no good outcome for either of the two kids - nothing Postal-like. The film Elephant was clearly influenced by the shooting, so why can't a game be inspired by a tragedy - it happens all the time. This is what I currently blame the media: different medium, different standards. Gaming is only slowly becoming accepted mainstream culture.
Was there an outrage when the adventure game Titanic was released?
PCGamer77 (3158) on 5/21/2006 8:35 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Yes, I read the article; I would not post on the topic otherwise.
From the perspective of the Columbine shooters, the outcome was in fact "good." They killed and terrified their unarmed peers, and then ended their pathetic, miserable lives. Two-for-one.
As for the Titanic tragedy, it just isn't analogous to Columbine. People died, but nobody was murdered. Did the Titanic adventure game put the player in charge of building a boat that would sink and kill lots of people? I doubt it...
Again: Do we really need to defend this kind of stuff in order to protect our hobby?
Scott Monster (986) on 5/22/2006 1:07 AM · Permalink · Report
Its the give and take of freedom of self expression.
There are countless games that let you kill innocent people with no consequences. It's obviously an exercise in bad taste if you represent actual people, but yet its still should be represented as free speech.
Its funny, but it reminds me of the Penny-Arcade/Jack Thompson situation.
Diogo Ribeiro (332) on 5/22/2006 1:33 AM · Permalink · Report
I don't think the issue was about defending this game's theme but rather, defending gaming in general from some knee jerk reactions people have when it comes to violence depicted in games, especially in regards to such regretful events as those that happened in Columbine.
Besides, I daresay the article was written with malicious and/or sensationalist intent. Of course a game depicting events that happened in Columbine will affect those that lived through it or had any kind of connection to it. In this case it's not so much about the violence, but confronting victims with their traumas again. Anything - be it videogames or any other mediums - depicting traumatic events is going to reach out and affect some people more than others, especially those closely associated with them - that much is clear; but all I see in this article is some newspaper not only actively going around showing people a game that they shouldn't have any contact with for obvious reasons, but also uses negative opinions against the game as some sort of scapegoat to freely attack, or have others attack the medium.
And this, I think, leads to two points worth mentioning. On one hand, and strictly speaking of depictions of violence or violent events, this game is really no different from several other games out there. The only reason why this game got any negative reactions was not even because of the questionable content per se; I'm willing to bet there is much worse made and available in other sites. The reason it gets bad rep is only because it depicted violence which happened in Columbine, and because Columbine somehow gets under people's skins. There wouldn't be nowhere near an outrage if the game had the same or worse depictions of violence but touched on an entirely different - or even 'acceptable' - theme.
On the other hand, the game's theme is handled in a bad way. From what its developer stated the consequences of their actions are shown, but is this enough? Making a game where the players control the hitmen of Columbine is like making a concentration camp sim and have Hitler round up Jews and gas them. It may be free expression, it may not be made with the intention of glorifying the situation and may even present dire, ingame consequences for doing so, but why should we even want to engage in such an activity?
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 5/22/2006 2:27 AM · Permalink · Report
I put this subject into Google. Look at the results. News reporters are pretty much lapping this stuff up. This is why people choose video games for their sensationalizing. It DOES make good headlines. And it DOES make good articles.
I bet we're sounding like hypocrites right now. We cry out that video games are much less violent than people make them out to be then bam, some guy makes a Columbine video game. If only they did articles on video games like ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, or The Longest Journey. I'm sure it would change people's perspectives a lot.
Ironically, like they say there is no such thing as bad publicity. I'm going to download it and see what its like right now. had they never wrote the article about ti, I never woould have heard of it. Praise the media for free publicity.
Shoddyan (15001) on 5/22/2006 8:49 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] I bet we're sounding like hypocrites right now. We cry out that video games are much less violent than people make them out to be then bam, some guy makes a Columbine video game. If only they did articles on video games like ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, or The Longest Journey. I'm sure it would change people's perspectives a lot. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
And you'll always find that. For every game that's going the route of trying hard not to offend anybody in any way, there's another developer who's working hard to "push the limit" of our perceptions of games. Sometimes that just means loading on the blood and violence, other times it means exploring religion and race issues, sometimes it means placing as many nude shots as they think they can get away with. And there will always be the folks who seriously consider themselves to be artists and the folks who seriously consider the need to SELL a game to somebody as paramount. I think this falls under the later, but I could be wrong.
Don't believe me? You can look at other media just as easily. There's a big difference between a "G" movie about a yellow dog and an "R" movie about zombies. In fact there are lots of movies about zombies made by "indie film houses" and there might in fact be "indie movies" about yellow dogs. For every Steven Spielberg, there's a David Cronenberg. And I can't say I prefer one over the other... but their filmes might get very different reactions from the public. The same goes for novels... there are science fiction stories that blow up planets of people and mainstream fiction that follows the motivations of a killer.... And I haven't even mentioned the non-fiction in either of these (which is what Columbine game may be, though not necessarily)
So in conclusion, I think it's also wrong to cry out: "that video games are less violent than people make them out to be". Because they are. Just not all of them. And not all the time. There ARE other options. Lots of them.
.
I don't think I've ever played a game for the violence alone.
chirinea (47504) on 5/22/2006 6:29 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start PCGamer77 wrote--]As for the comparison to war games, they are obviously very different from this Columbine garbage. War games feature adult, uniformed military personnel fighting for a cause that can be considered just by a significant number of reasonable people (even if they are wrong in their belief.) There is no way you can consider kids shooting down unarmed schoolmates just. It certainly isn't challenging or fun, either, which we should be thankful for, since it means that the vast majority of people will see no reason to bother with such a vulgar and tasteless "game." [/Q --end PCGamer77 wrote--]
Well, I don't think war is just just because there is "a significant number of reasonable people" that considers it just. I don't think shooting down unarmed schoolmates just either, but hey, maybe those responsible for that thought it was just. Find more people who thinks like them and BINGO, you have "a significant number of people" that some can think not to be reasonable, but some other does. I don't believe that people that supports war are reasonable. Just look at the Iraq thing.
Indra was here (20760) on 5/22/2006 2:49 PM · Permalink · Report
For something that is technically "obvious", we sure have a lot to say about it. Frustrated are we? :)
PCGamer77 (3158) on 5/22/2006 3:12 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] Well, I don't think war is just just because there is "a significant number of reasonable people" that considers it just. I don't think shooting down unarmed schoolmates just either, but hey, maybe those responsible for that thought it was just. Find more people who thinks like them and BINGO, you have "a significant number of people" that some can think not to be reasonable, but some other does. I don't believe that people that supports war are reasonable. Just look at the Iraq thing. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]
This statement just confirms my worst fears. If gamers don't have the moral education to know that there is a difference between war, which might be just in some cases, and outright murder, which can't be just in any case, then the public is simply going to ignore whatever gamers have to say.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 5/23/2006 1:24 AM · Permalink · Report
Wow, so I just played this game and let me tell you that the media has way overblown this game by far. I downloaded the game and checked it out.
By comaprison, it is only the source material, not the actual content that's bothering peeople. The game is not that violent. There is barely any blood in it all all, all of the battles are done like final finstasy. There isn't even graphic seenes. The scenes of the two children attacking are nothing worst thn pokemon. For example if I attack with a knife, all it does it do a little "scratch" animation then the person disappears. Literally disappears. No blood. No disambiguation. Just fades away like something out of Final Fantasy. Its practically stoic when compared to some of our other games.
I might go even farther and say that the game tries to make the event seem sadder. The guy, whoever created this, though he said it was a parody of video games, put ALOT of detail into the two characters you play. When the characters speak, they are so deep. Hell, they're practically philosophical. They speak of God, they're meaning in life, their depressions and frustrations in life. They talk about how and why they feel all this pent up rage. Sometimes it can bring a tear to your eye. They are cold-blooded killers in the wya they act, but underneath, when they are revealed in flashbacks, they turn out to be really, well....deep. The guy is practically trying to show the two people's deep sides.
I don't know why people are getting upset over this, if only they played it they would see that its not that bad, and the character development isnt trying to show these guys off as bad guys, nor is it trying to glorify the event. Its like that movie "Elephant", showing the event from the eyes of the boys in the game.
I'm telling ya, this game is stoic compared to other games. Barely any blood, no gore, some very (in my opinion) mild and cartoon violence. Its even got some better character development than most modern "industry" made games. :-) No joke!
If we're going to be mad over source material rather than content, we might as well make news articles over other things like Shindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Those things both some dramatic and very violent content, and are also sensitive subjects, yet no one seems to be makign a fuss over those. I suppose the medium of the source is to blame. Again....
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/23/2006 1:36 AM · Permalink · Report
I can't agree with that... there IS a cardinal difference between movies and games. Movies don't let YOU be the protagonist. When you watch a movie, you're merely an outsider; you don't identify yourself with the hero the way you do in games (for obvious reasons). Making a game in which you are a murderer is not the same as making a movie that depicts murder. And it's also not the same as making a game with a lot of blood and violence, but with you playing as the good guy.
In fact, it DOES bother me that some games force you to play as the bad guy. I never play such games and I find them very disturbing; I wish they didn't exist. For me, games have an educational and moral value; playing as the great hero, doing good deeds, saving the world is what makes gaming so attractive for me.
This unique side of gaming (the ability to control a protagonist) is a complex and delicate issue. The problems involved are not only those of freedom of expresson, but also ethical ones.
Slug Camargo (583) on 5/24/2006 2:27 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]In fact, it DOES bother me that some games force you to play as the bad guy. I never play such games and I find them very disturbing; I wish they didn't exist. For me, games have an educational and moral value; playing as the great hero, doing good deeds, saving the world is what makes gaming so attractive for me.[/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
That's a nice thought, but some games are just meant to be played to have fun, which doesn't necessarily have to bring any kind of lesson attached. And smashing windows and breaking furniture and generally acting like a prick is fun; even going as low as to commit seriously questionable acts. It's undeniable that there's a morbid vandal lurking in the heart of everyone. Human beings are baaaaaaaad :P
Seriously, though; take a game like Half-Life 2, for example. I'd bet my right arm that 99.9999% of the people that played it spent a considerable amount of time smashing windows and throwing stuff on people's heads just because the game's physics would allow you to do it in a way never seen before.
Every gamer that ever played a game where you could harm innocent people did do it on purpose at least once, just to see what would happen.
I mean, why do people enjoy a boxing match? Or even worse, a bullfight? To me, those practices are way more sick than a game where I'm only hurting a bunch of colored math.
The problem is not games that appeal to the dark side of the human nature, that side will always be there and having a socially acceptable, morally balanced behavior towards the world is up to the individual's own common sense, not to the entertainment media of his/her choice; the problem is people so mentally unstable that can't distinguish between reality and a video game, or so imbecile that would take the actions in a violent videogame's character as life lessons. Such people shouldn't be allowed to go outside anyway, violent games or not.
In my own experience, having senselessly violent games actually turned up to be quite healthy, as they served me well to blow some serious steam in the past, which I could've done by exploding on real people, or simply by swallowing it all up and turning into a frustrated, bitter prick. More than I already am, that is.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/24/2006 11:50 AM · Permalink · Report
I hate boxing matches and bullfights...
Anyway, I'd like to point out than in a game like Half-Life 2 (and many, many others), you CAN do bad things, but you don't necessarily HAVE to do them. The games allow you, the player, to take moral decisions. This is one aspect of gaming I enjoy very much. What I don't like are merely those games that FORCE you to be bad.
Trixter (8952) on 5/25/2006 11:54 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]I can't agree with that... there IS a cardinal difference between movies and games. Movies don't let YOU be the protagonist.[/q]
Regardless, every single study that has been done on violent games and teens shows that violent games don't promote violence in teens... in fact, it reduces it, since it gives them a release.
[q]In fact, it DOES bother me that some games force you to play as the bad guy. I never play such games and I find them very disturbing; I wish they didn't exist. For me, games have an educational and moral value; playing as the great hero, doing good deeds, saving the world is what makes gaming so attractive for me. [/quote]
So don't play games you don't agree with.
[q]This unique side of gaming (the ability to control a protagonist) is a complex and delicate issue. The problems involved are not only those of freedom of expresson, but also ethical ones. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Are you saying playing as an antagonist (instead of a protagonist) isn't freedom of expression?
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/26/2006 7:09 AM · Permalink · Report
It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It's just bad taste, that's all. Like Marquise De Sade's books, if I may draw a parallel.
Indra was here (20760) on 5/23/2006 8:52 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start PCGamer77 wrote--] This statement just confirms my worst fears. If gamers don't have the moral education to know that there is a difference between war, which might be just in some cases, and outright murder, which can't be just in any case, then the public is simply going to ignore whatever gamers have to say. [/Q --end PCGamer77 wrote--]
Dude.
War = Political Murder backed by the State and known by the public.
Murder = The process of taking a person's life with acknowledgment of the action in mention.
Manslaughter = The above without acknowledgment
Assasination = Political Murder backed by the State and not known by the public or its representation
.
Killing someone is killing someone dude. For whatever noble reason, you are taking a person's life and "ending it" aka murder.
chirinea (47504) on 5/23/2006 12:19 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] [Q2 --start PCGamer77 wrote--] This statement just confirms my worst fears. If gamers don't have the moral education to know that there is a difference between war, which might be just in some cases, and outright murder, which can't be just in any case, then the public is simply going to ignore whatever gamers have to say. [/Q2 --end PCGamer77 wrote--]
Dude.
War = Political Murder backed by the State and known by the public.
Murder = The process of taking a person's life with acknowledgment of the action in mention.
Manslaughter = The above without acknowledgment
Assasination = Political Murder backed by the State and not known by the public or its representation
.
Killing someone is killing someone dude. For whatever noble reason, you are taking a person's life and "ending it" aka murder. [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]
Couldn't agree more.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 5/24/2006 12:06 AM · Permalink · Report
In fact, it DOES bother me that some games force you to play as the bad guy. I never play such games and I find them very disturbing; I wish they didn't exist. For me, games have an educational and moral value; playing as the great hero, doing good deeds, saving the world is what makes gaming so attractive for me.
This unique side of gaming (the ability to control a protagonist) is a complex and delicate issue. The problems involved are not only those of freedom of expresson, but also ethical ones.
I have to disagree on you in this one. Good guys, bad guys. There all labels. Me, I don't beleive in such things as good or evil. There's just two sides of everything. For example, here in the US forest fires are considered to be pretty bad. People live in the pine barrens, and need extensive insurance coverage for house fires and other fires. And what's worse, is that the more they perevent it, the bigger the fire will eventually be. There's no way to indefinitely prevent a forest fire in the pine barrens, in fact its needed to sustain life. So when a forest ifre does happen, its HUGE. All the unburnt trees that were supposed to be destoryed by previos fires go up. For this reason, tons of people hate them. They're considered bad. However, they do provide amazing life for the trees. In order for some pine trees to release theuir seeds, they need to make sure that the area is clear, or else they won't get nutrients. So years of evolutinary change have caused them to only release when a fire is around, so that the seeds know their won't be many trees around after that. In this case, the fires are good. They are crucial to the balance of the ecosystem, and neccesary for life.
Here's a different one. In African, lions are becoming scarce. The indigenous tribes of people in Afirca kill them, becuase they eat their cattle, which are (to some people) sacred and are neccesary for food and money. But we Westerners are sometimes sentimental about nature, and tell them to stop and love nature. But the tribes are only trying to keep their cattle and their livelihood. If they didn't defend their livestock, they would die. So who is the goodguy? The tribesmen who goes up against a lion? Surely his bravery and honor to defend his village's cattle he is the goodguy. Or is it the Westerner, the man who is trying to protect the Earth and teach upright morals?
The truth is that there isn't such a thing as good guys or bad guys. They only exist in TV, movies, and video games. In real life, there is no defined good or evil. There is only two sides of a story.
I like games that make me the "bad guy" not because he's promoting some "bad morals", but because its a different side to the story. Like Shadow of the Colossus. Wanda bravely fights off 16 colossus to save his love's life, but in the end he ends up releasing a demon. So is he good or bad? He rescued his love, so that should make him good, or is he evil for releasing an unspeakable evil on the world in the process.
Good and evil are only prespectives. I like seeing games that go into the "other" perspective, because if we didn't the world from another perspective and other views and other arguments, we would all be biased, ignorant, and naive.
Slug Camargo (583) on 5/24/2006 1:43 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]I have to disagree on you in this one. Good guys, bad guys. There all labels. Me, I don't beleive in such things as good or evil. There's just two sides of everything... [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
Very profound, but I guess we can all agree that the main guy in, say, Postal, is a bad one, and there's no way around it.
Trixter (8952) on 5/26/2006 12:02 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Dr. Von Katze wrote--]
Very profound, but I guess we can all agree that the main guy in, say, Postal, is a bad one, and there's no way around it. [/Q --end Dr. Von Katze wrote--]
I don't know... I think he did the world a service by eliminating Gary Coleman in Postal 2.
(ducking)
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/24/2006 11:54 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Well, this is a very complex ethical discussion we are entering here... I suppose you are right in your own way, i.e. if you think good and evil are just perspectives or opinions, then of course you wouldn't mind playing a game that puts you in the shoes of a bad person... But personally, I'm convinced that the difference between good and evil is pretty much the biggest difference there is. Otherwise the world would lose its moral meaning. That's why games that ignore this difference repel me.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/24/2006 12:01 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]
War = Political Murder backed by the State and known by the public.
Killing someone is killing someone dude. For whatever noble reason, you are taking a person's life and "ending it" aka murder. [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] Your definition of war is not exact. You are oversimplifying and generalizing things by saying that war is a political murder. There are different kinds of war, with plenty of different reasons; similarly, there are different kinds of murders with plenty of different reasons. You can say that murder in general is bad and war in general is bad; but if a state has to begin a war to defend itself or to prevent larger wars, this is not the same as "political murder"; likewise, if you kill a maniac to prevent him from killing or torturing someone, this is not the same as if you kill people just because you have some "psychological problems".
chirinea (47504) on 5/24/2006 2:12 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] You can say that murder in general is bad and war in general is bad; but if a state has to begin a war to defend itself or to prevent larger wars, this is not the same as "political murder"; likewise, if you kill a maniac to prevent him from killing or torturing someone, this is not the same as if you kill people just because you have some "psychological problems". [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Although the reasons may be different, the result is always one or more dead human beings. That's why I think that even if you kill someone to prevent him from killing other people, you are still killing that person. And I really think that there is always other better solutions than murder.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/24/2006 2:51 PM · Permalink · Report
Sometimes there are no other solutions. If you see somebody who is trying to kill an innocent person, wouldn't you kill the attacker? Otherwise the innocent person would die because you failed to interfere. In this case, murder is a good deed. That's why saying that killing is always the same is not correct.
Likewise, if I play as a good guy in a game and am killing bad people, it's not morally wrong. However, if I play as a couple of psychotic murderers, there is a problem.
chirinea (47504) on 5/24/2006 6:30 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Sometimes there are no other solutions. If you see somebody who is trying to kill an innocent person, wouldn't you kill the attacker? Otherwise the innocent person would die because you failed to interfere. In this case, murder is a good deed. That's why saying that killing is always the same is not correct.
Likewise, if I play as a good guy in a game and am killing bad people, it's not morally wrong. However, if I play as a couple of psychotic murderers, there is a problem. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
The thing is that I really think it is difficult to decide who's the innocent person. Ok, if you say that someones is robbing someone, and threatening his life to do so, then you may say that the "bad" guy is the one who's robbing, and the "innocent" is the one getting robbed. But when it comes to think that maybe the two men are both chiefs of a family and both have to feed their children, the thing becomes a little harder. The guys who's robbing is doing wrong, while the other one isn't, but, is it really "better" to kill this one instead of that one, only because his doing something wrong? I don't know, when it comes to moral issues it is really hard to argue, but I think that, in the end, having someone killed isn't good, in any circumstances.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/25/2006 1:58 AM · Permalink · Report
Of course in many cases it's impossible to say what is right and what is wrong, who is good and who is bad. But that was my point exactly. Each case is different. But if I'm not mistaken, this whole discussion was about a game in which the protagonists are psychotic killers? I can't quite see where is the moral ambiguity here. They are clearly bad, it's not one of these cases where there is place for doubts, is it? Or am I missing something?
Trixter (8952) on 5/26/2006 12:08 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]But if I'm not mistaken, this whole discussion was about a game in which the protagonists are psychotic killers? I can't quite see where is the moral ambiguity here. They are clearly bad, it's not one of these cases where there is place for doubts, is it? Or am I missing something? [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Not sure if you're missing something; I get the feeling you just can't believe that bad people should be allowed to live, just like everyone else should be allowed to live (especially if they are psychotic, ie. not in control of their actions or rational thought).
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/29/2006 2:19 AM · Permalink · Report
If a person is a danger to the society, if his actions will cause deaths of innocent people, then yes, he shouldn't live. Is there anything more obvious than that?
chirinea (47504) on 6/7/2006 5:52 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]If a person is a danger to the society, if his actions will cause deaths of innocent people, then yes, he shouldn't live. Is there anything more obvious than that? [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
For me, it is never obvious why a person shouldn't live.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/7/2006 6:01 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, if what I said above is not obvious, then there is nothing obvious in the world. The world becomes an absolute chaos because of this kind of moral relativism. There is nothing more dangerous than generalizing in such matters. Nothing more dangerous than granting some kind of perverse maniac and murderer the same rights for life as innocent people. This brings about full destruction of values. Which is pretty much what is happening now in the West. This is why so many Western people are extremely insecure, weak, nervous, and unhappy in their lives. All the time they have moral doubts; the values are gone, everything is relative, the meaning of good and evil is unclear... what a sad perspective!
chirinea (47504) on 6/7/2006 12:29 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm not being relativistic, and believe me, I really think that people should feel the consequences for their actions. What I'm trying to say since the very beginning is that I no matter what a person have done, he don't deserve to be killed. As a Christian I think that it is morally wrong to kill, no matter who you're killing. But still, I do think that morals are relative, even mine.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/8/2006 1:24 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] What I'm trying to say since the very beginning is that I no matter what a person have done, he don't deserve to be killed. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--] A person who rapes, tortures, and kills little children doesn't deserve to be killed? You think it would be better to let him live so he can continue doing that?
This kind of thinking is pure insanity...
Trixter (8952) on 6/8/2006 11:16 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] A person who rapes, tortures, and kills little children doesn't deserve to be killed? You think it would be better to let him live so he can continue doing that? [/q]
The goal is to stop him without killing him, obviously.
[q] This kind of thinking is pure insanity... [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Well, at least it's not hypocritical. What kind of person am I to claim killing is wrong, then kill someone to illustrate my point? :-)
Trixter (8952) on 5/26/2006 12:05 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Sometimes there are no other solutions. If you see somebody who is trying to kill an innocent person, wouldn't you kill the attacker? [/q]
No, I'd try to stop the attacker.
[q] Likewise, if I play as a good guy in a game and am killing bad people, it's not morally wrong. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
You're starting to sound like the people you are most worried about. I know I'd be worried about someone who advocates killing by saying it's not morally wrong. It is morally wrong, no matter what the circumstances.
PCGamer77 (3158) on 5/27/2006 5:06 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Sometimes there are no other solutions. If you see somebody who is trying to kill an innocent person, wouldn't you kill the attacker? [/Q2 --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
No, I'd try to stop the attacker. [Q2 --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Likewise, if I play as a good guy in a game and am killing bad people, it's not morally wrong. [/Q2 --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
You're starting to sound like the people you are most worried about. I know I'd be worried about someone who advocates killing by saying it's not morally wrong. It is morally wrong, no matter what the circumstances. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Jim makes some fairly common, and not really unreasonable, objections here. Still, I don't think he has really thought the implications of statements through.
There are many conceivable situations in which merely trying to stop a murderer would be irresponsible. Police officers responding on the scene to a violent crime should not be obligated to stand by and watch murder occur while they try to implement a less violent solution (nets, gas, or whatever) that probably will not achieve the desired result. In any event, the life of the innocent person is what primarily needs to be defended; treating murderers and victims the same way only gives murderers an incentive to commit their crimes, since they will not need to fear retaliation.
The statement that "killing is always wrong" has a strong intellectual appeal, since it makes one appear to be very logically consistent and morally principled. Yet most people don't accept it. Are they just ignorant brutes? I doubt it; I think they can see, as I have outlined above, that such consistency leads to consequences almost all of would find totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/29/2006 2:21 AM · Permalink · Report
It's very nice that you'd try to STOP the attacker, I surely agree that the priority here is to stop and not necessarily to kill, but what if the only way to stop him would be to kill him? Would you just say "hey, killing is morally wrong, no matter the circumstances", and let him do his work? How is that more moral than killing the guy and saving an innocent life?
PCGamer77 (3158) on 5/24/2006 3:16 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] Although the reasons may be different, the result is always one or more dead human beings. That's why I think that even if you kill someone to prevent him from killing other people, you are still killing that person. And I really think that there is always other better solutions than murder. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]
I am grateful to Oleg (AKA Unicorn-Lynx) for getting in on this thread, since I think his comments show the kind of sensitivity and sophisticated thinking that I wish more gamers used in addressing issues related to violent content in video games.
On the "medium" issue: Oleg is absolutely right. Games are different from other media, not just in terms of public perception, but in the way they actually involve the media consumer. That is one of the strengths of games as far as we Mobygamers are concerned, but we need to admit that in some cases it could also be viewed as a weakness (as is perhaps the case with this Columbine thing.)
On the "murder" issue: As I said in private correspondence to Inderanta, killing is not always murder; it depends on the context. If Inderanta and Chirinea want to argue that killing of all kinds is bad, that is fine, but it would be helpful if they were clear about that, rather than just using murder and killing as perfect synonyms. As for the argument that there are "always" better solutions than violence, well, this seems highly unrealistic. Even if you were technically right, you have to acknowledge the fact that most people aren't going to agree with you--at least not without some good examples of "better" solutions to support your point.
The whole "war is/isn't murder" issue seems a bit off topic, but I think these kind of meandering discussions may be inevitable, since it is difficult to debate the ethics of one issue without getting into broader ethical questions that apply to a whole range of other issues as well...
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 5/24/2006 11:51 PM · Permalink · Report
But personally, I'm convinced that the difference between good and evil is pretty much the biggest difference there is. Otherwise the world would lose its moral meaning. That's why games that ignore this difference repel me.
I guess you make a good paint. If we look at the evil for too long, the darkness may consume us. It is true, in fact, I think it is good to have a mixture of both good and evil to see both sides. If we only view the good, we get biased, naive, and ignroant of the other story. But if we view the evil, we will begin to think that the evil is actually the good!
We must also remember, morals are REFLEXIVE. Today's good is tomorrow's evil. Hundreds of years ago slavery was not only legal, but encouraged by many people (this is especially true of past Southerners here in the US, who used the Bible to back up their reasoning for slavery). In Romans times, gladiator fighting was not only legal, it was entertainment! Morals change. There is nothing telling us wehat to think and what not to think. People make up their own morals as times change. Just 50 years ago here in the United States, women were completely domesticated, acting as slaves to housework and children. Now, sometims the men stay homr and the women go to work.
Despite what people think, they do have the power to change morals. It's just a mater of mob rule. That's why there is no way we are allowed to define what is good and evil. There is just two sides to each story.
In the real world, there is no such things as black and white. Just varying shades of gray.
Very profound, but I guess we can all agree that the main guy in, say, Postal, is a bad one, and there's no way around it.
Of course, that's a bad game. BUT, like I said in my earlier post, good and evil only exist in video games, TV, and movies. Such is the case with this one.
PCGamer77 (3158) on 5/25/2006 12:48 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
We must also remember, morals are REFLEXIVE. Today's good is tomorrow's evil. Hundreds of years ago slavery was not only legal, but encouraged by many people (this is especially true of past Southerners here in the US, who used the Bible to back up their reasoning for slavery). In Romans times, gladiator fighting was not only legal, it was entertainment! Morals change. There is nothing telling us wehat to think and what not to think. People make up their own morals as times change. Just 50 years ago here in the United States, women were completely domesticated, acting as slaves to housework and children. Now, sometims the men stay homr and the women go to work.
[/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
Matt's attitude, as reflected in the above statement, is fairly typical of many people nowadays--especially younger people. The slavery issue is an exceptional case, and the male-female roles issue is a fairly marginal one compared to slavery and murder (and surely it is a great exaggeration to call 1950s American women slave-like!). When you focus on a few exceptions to the rule like these, you can make a fairly strong case for moral relativism.
But the question here is: How likely are we to be completely wrong about something as fundamental as murder? How much sense does it make to leave wide room for doubt on an issue like murder? Do you doubt the law of gravity on the basis that, at one time, nobody believed in it? If not, then why would you doubt the natural law against murder? I think the burden of proof has to fall on those who challenge conventional morals, just as the burden of proof falls on those who dispute the generally accepted principles of science.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 5/25/2006 2:01 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Hmmm, I beleive we have a bit of a mix up here.
There seems to be two debates at once in this topic. One is about the morals of playing as the bad-guy" whereas I have just argued that there is no good-guy or bad-guy, just sides. And, we cannot decide what is good or bad since times change.
The other debate is this war/murder thing which seems to be going on in here. since I am a debate-loving person, I would love to join in, but I really haven't been paying attention to that side of discussion.
Please deisregard my posts for the subject of murder and war. My arguments only applies for the former topic of debate, not the latter.
Oh and off subject please forgive any spelling mistakes. Whenever I'm talking about stuff like this the words fly off my mind and onto the keyboard at rapid pace, and I often misspell a lot of words. :-)
(and surely it is a great exaggeration to call 1950s American women slave-like!)
Sorry, I wasnt trying to exaggerate, just a bad choce of words. :-P
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 5/25/2006 2:02 AM · Permalink · Report
Well said!
Indra was here (20760) on 5/25/2006 7:08 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Oh, carp. This is what happens when you don't log in for a couple of days. And correction, I do not view killing as good or bad. I just view killing as killing.
The whole use of the term "murder" might be incorrect in this whole debate since I assume we associate murder as "a bad thing", in reflection to justified and unjustified killings. Then again, justification of whatever reason wholly depends of which side of the fence your standing (read=subjective).
But as we all "hopefully" know, the discussion of right and wrong, good or bad are illusionary products of human civilization. They are "taught" to us, we do not instictively learn what is good and bad (remember when you were a kid?).
And since the illusion of right and wrong, good and bad can only be acquired through learning, different teachers mean different lessons: different perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad. This is why my version right and wrong in the debate surrounding "killings" would most likely be different from yours, since we had different teachers, different cultures, etc. and differently ways of analyzing this information.
So what is the summary of the carp I just wrote? It's just a game but a game is also dangerous since for some people it can act as teachers, especially to children who use it as a source of "future moral codes". We may think them as idiots, but not everyone has the luxury of wisdom and intelligence.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 5/27/2006 4:46 AM · Permalink · Report
It would be nice if you priveded a reason behind your sentimental value. It would be much more interesting to back up your logic with good facts. Drives the topic too.
Maw (833) on 6/1/2006 10:58 PM · Permalink · Report
[quote]It would be nice if you priveded a reason behind your sentimental value. It would be much more interesting to back up your logic with good facts. Drives the topic too.[/quote]
Wait, I have a great idea for a game! A sim where you get to recreate 9/11!! You have to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, killing as many infidels as possible. The higher your civilian casualty/planes hijack ratio is, the higher your score!
Hey, an even better an idea for a game! An Auschwitz simulator! You can play as a sadistic prison warden who receives payment for every Jew murdered and disposed of. The more inventive your torture methods, the higher your bonuses.
Personally, I don't think it's sentimentalism to say that there are some things we should not trivialise by turning into video games.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/2/2006 6:44 AM · Permalink · Report
I couldn't have said it better, Pathogen: "there are some things we should not trivialise by turning into video games" - I absolutely agree with that. I'd just like to point out that "trivialising" in this case means letting you play as the morally wrong side. A game based on 9/11 where your mission is to stop the terrorists, or a game that takes place in Auschwitz, where you are a prisoner who must escape (for example), would be totally acceptable, provided it is done with good taste.
n][rvana (1823) on 6/2/2006 11:21 PM · Permalink · Report
When I was a kid, I watched cartoons like GI Joe and Thundercats, and I always felt sorry for the bad guys. They planned and executed carefully their plans, and just when they were about to win, the good guys had strokes of good luck or Houdini-like scapisms, causing them to screw the bad guys' plans. I didn't thought it was fair. I always wondered how cool would be if the bad guys won once in a while. I actually kind of hated the good guys because it was not just for they to win everytime. Later, when me and my friend played in the backyard, I always chose Darth Vader instead of Luke, Megatron instead of Optimus Prime, Lord Terror instead of Captain Power, the Mutants instead of the Thundercats, well you get the picture. I tried to make bad guys win in my yard because in the TV they always lost.
Then I was introduced to gaming, and the appeal it had to me was the fact that you were able to actually take sides and let the bad guys win!.
But that doesn't makes you a potential criminal. Instead it has helped me to vent my hate on virtual beings. And what happened after? I switched the PC off and went back to the real life.
Chris Crawford mentions in his book, "The Art of Computer Game Design" a concept called "security", which means that in the computer we may play the role of a violent criminal, slay thousands of men in wars, earn and waste complete fortunes, and still when you turn the console/pc off your conscience is clear. Isn't it great? However what's most important here is the fact that we have a CHOICE. Not everyone likes to be always the good guys. There are players out there that prefer to be Spawn rather than Superman.
IMHO, because of the freedom of choice, and beyond of notions of what's good or bad, there will always be ppl who would like to play the part of the terrorists at 9/11, or be the managers of "Auschwitz Tycoon", just because they find interesting to feel what's like to be the evil ones. Just for the sake of it.
However, there's a world of difference (actually, the virtual world against the real world) between playing one of those games and taking a gun and recreating Columbine or 9/11.
Someone here mentioned that children have to be taught good from evil. And that's what we as parents must do. However, if we just slack it off or are too busy making money in our jobs (cough US cough) instead of supervising what our children see and play, then it's our fault when things like Columbine happen. We as parents should accept the guilt instead of blaming other media like videogames, music, movies, etc. But I guess that's other topic.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/3/2006 12:56 AM · Permalink · Report
Our conscience can't be clear after we've played as a bad guy in a computer game. If it is, then we have a problem with the conscience. As a kid, I also felt pity for the bad guys in cartoons; I also supported the big bad wolf and not the stupid pesky rabbit who did all kinds of dirty tricks to it. But such feelings should not be encouraged when they go beyond the point of simple compassion and understanding and begin to grow into a violent emotion. That's part of education you are talking about. If a kid shows too much compassion to the bad guys and wants to experience events from their side, and we allow him to play a game in which he controls this side, then we have a problem. I'm not saying that everyone who plays as the bad guys is necessarily bad; but such person will certainly have a more cynical approach to the world and more loose morals, which will create a damaging ambiguity in his life.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/3/2006 2:17 AM · Permalink · Report
Nirvana, everything you said I utterly and completely agree with. Well out, my friend, well put.
As for the whole being able to play as the bad guys once, I agree. I mean, 9/11 was a tragic evetn, but I do want a game to simulate me as the badguy, because I want to. I can walk in there, slay hundreds of innocent humans, mothers, and fathers, and maybe have some twisted fun in it, and be able to just turn off the game walk away. No one was hurt, I had a little fun, and we all get what we want.
But I agree with what you said. Its the kids that get this confused. It is up to parents to make sure that the game is just a game. The computer games allow us to be evil and have fun without the consequences, becuase thats what video games are for. But in real life, they have consequences. All in all, just to be on the safe side, I dont think kids should play M rated games before the age of 18, and a few teen games if they're really that bad.
I dont see the immorality of playing as the badguy like you do, Oleg. Why do you fell like simulating the event in itself is immoral. Do you feel like we'll become tainted possibly? I realize that kids playing such evil games is pretty damaging to their image of the world, but surely gamers such as us, who are mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong and real and fiction, can play a game like this and have a clean conscience, right?
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/3/2006 4:00 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]I dont see the immorality of playing as the badguy like you do, Oleg. Why do you fell like simulating the event in itself is immoral. Do you feel like we'll become tainted possibly? I realize that kids playing such evil games is pretty damaging to their image of the world, but surely gamers such as us, who are mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong and real and fiction, can play a game like this and have a clean conscience, right? [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] Wrong. If you have a clear conscience after massacring innocent people in a "bad guy simulator", there's a problem. I'm certainly not preaching morals here, but I think that if a grown-up person doesn't feel disgust when he virtually slays innocents, something is wrong with his sensitivity, and ultimately with his vision of the world. That's just my personal opinion.
Игги Друге (46656) on 6/3/2006 6:19 AM · Permalink · Report
If we go by Matt's review of the game, it features quite a lot of characterisation of the protagonists/murderers. It offers a chance to see the events from their point of view.
As adults, are we not compassionate enough to be able to see the world from the point of view of the bad guy? Should we not try to look at the other side of the coin? Are our morals not firm enough to withstand the power of the dark side?
There does seem to be a definite difference between this Columbia game and a game such as GTA or Postal, since it problematises the events instead of making pure splatter "entertainment" out of it. Games tend to over-simplify things, whereas this game actually seems to do the opposite. That's laudable.
Many great literary works try to tell the story of the bad guy. That's one of literature's tasks; to make the world less simple. The same goes for art. If games are supposed to be a cultural expression worth taking seriously, it must also take its subject matters seriously.
I am far more shocked by games such as GTA, Postal or war games than by something like this, which actually has some pretentions.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/3/2006 9:08 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] If we go by Matt's review of the game, it features quite a lot of characterisation of the protagonists/murderers. It offers a chance to see the events from their point of view.[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] That's exactly what bothers me! There's nothing more dangerous than trying to see the events from the point of view of bad people! That's the biggest moral disease post-war Western world has ever known!
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] As adults, are we not compassionate enough to be able to see the world from the point of view of the bad guy?[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Compassionate?? What's compassionate in diving into the sick, twisted soul of a psychotic murderer? Having compassion to bad people means helping them!
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] Many great literary works try to tell the story of the bad guy. That's one of literature's tasks; to make the world less simple. The same goes for art. If games are supposed to be a cultural expression worth taking seriously, it must also take its subject matters seriously.[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] I already pointed out the difference between games and other kinds of art or entertainment. The interactive nature of games make such kind of experiments very problematic and morally questionable.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/3/2006 3:59 PM · Permalink · Report
[quote]There's nothing more dangerous than trying to see the events from the point of view of bad people![/quote]
I think we've hit the main question of the argument: Is it good or bad to see from the badguys point of view.
To me, I would say that it is not only not dangerous, its healthy too. Like I said before, in the real world, tghere is no good or evil. People in video games, movies, a TV shows, they're always clear-cut. You can always tell who is invariably good and invariably bad. But in the real world, things are not always as clear-cut.
Case in point: Fahrenheit aka Indigo Prophecy. The game shows both sides of the argument, which is you take the role of both the killer and the cops. Lucas, the main character, kills a man while he is possessed by a oracle and forced to kill someone. But despite the fact that he's killed someone, he's really deep and going through a lot of emotional trouble. He recently broke up with his girlfriend, and he's mourning his dead parents. But on the other side of the coin, the police see him as a cold heartless murderer. They are of course, just as 3D as Lucas. One of them has problems dealing with his job and his girlfriend at the same time. By playing both sides of the coin, you can see both sides of the conflict. And things aren't clear cut in the game. Despite the fact that he's killed someone, he's a very deep and emotional character.
If we only saw the game from the police's side, he would just be another serial killer they had to catch, but instead we get both, revealing to us that he is not evil, but in fact very good.
To me, evil and good are just perspectives. Whats good to one person might be evil to another. Take for example, birth control. While it helps control the population and prevents the spreading of STD's, many would see it as good, however the Catholic curch sees it as evil because it makes pre-marital sex safer and allows people to have one-night stands without having to worry about pregnancy or STD's. So to some its evil, to some its good.
I think that its okay if we look at another perspective once in a while. I mean, we dont have to feel happy about it, but what if that evil person isnt killing someone. What if its just something that conflicts with the good persons. Or what about relgious wars? By helping either the good person OR the bad person, you're killing either way. And to the other religion, you are killing the good guys, so therefore you're helping the bad guys!
And Iggy is right, but characterizing the other side of the story, it makes the game from problematic. Just like the real world, whcih is never clear-cut as the TV, movies, or video games make it to be.
Trixter (8952) on 6/3/2006 5:59 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q1][q2]There's nothing more dangerous than trying to see the events from the point of view of bad people![/q2]
I think we've hit the main question of the argument: Is it good or bad to see from the badguys point of view. [/q1]
Which is where your philosophy and belief system get tested. For example, I think it is neither good nor bad to see the incident from the "bad guy" point of view... it just is. Each see the other as the "bad guy", so who can argue which point of view is which?
Disclaimer: I have no political or religious belief systems.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/3/2006 11:25 PM · Permalink · Report
Yea, I suppose that's where it really comes down, whats your belief in that sort of stuff, is it good or bad to see something from the "badguys" point of view.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/4/2006 5:11 AM · Permalink · Report
There are situations in which good and bad are indeed relative. But in case of the game which is the topic of our discussion, I think there's no question about who is bad and who is, let's say, not necessarily bad. In this case, looking at the events through the eyes of the criminals is, in my opinion, immoral.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/5/2006 1:19 AM · Permalink · Report
This is pure insanity. Following this idea, there are no good and bad people in the world, no innocents and no criminals, everything is relative. This is a terrible thought.
Indra was here (20760) on 6/5/2006 4:54 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]This is pure insanity. Following this idea, there are no good and bad people in the world, no innocents and no criminals, everything is relative. This is a terrible thought. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Oleg, where have you been dude? This is exactly how existence works (which is why my brain is a little f*cked up because of this realization)
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/6/2006 2:31 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, you've just answered yourself. Your brain is f***ed up (excuse my language, but you used that word), precisely because this "realization" is totally false. Once you get in touch with reality, find your beliefs, and stop this whole decadent moral ambiguity, your brain will return to norm - well, at least in this aspect... because there are enough things to screw our brains beside the issue we are discussing.
Trixter (8952) on 6/7/2006 5:12 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Viewpoints, my friend. We all have our own viewpoints. Personally, I think you're a nut for thinking you know what all 3 billion women on the world want, and you think I'm a nut for my viewpoint that psychotic killers might not deserve death. Your beliefs are based on your experiences with women; my beliefs are based on my experiences with mentally damaged people. Both are valid to each other; both are our realities.
I may not agree with your beliefs, but I will defend your right to have them. I suppose it's wishful thinking that all people would act this way ;-)
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/7/2006 5:30 AM · Permalink · Report
For the record: I never said I knew what all women wanted ;-) I said I knew what most women wanted.
And I don't trust your experiences with mentally damaged people, because you haven't met me yet :-/
Shoddyan (15001) on 6/4/2006 7:30 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] That's exactly what bothers me! There's nothing more dangerous than trying to see the events from the point of view of bad people! That's the biggest moral disease post-war Western world has ever known! [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
No, the biggest moral disease is refusing to examine other points of view because they're already classified as "evil". If one is morally superior, they can justify all kinds of actions to wipe out "evil". One of the more popular thoughts is that "evil" would have no rights or justification to exist, therefore any action against it, no matter how immoral otherwise, would be moral in this context to wipe out the "evil". However even if we do not take this case and suggest that every action against "evil" follows the strict moral teachings of the person in charge, by refusing to examine other points of view... one is still locked within an echo chamber and is unable to accept any alternatives to his actions. That is the kind of thinking that scares me the most and is often preached by "good people" under the intention of protecting themselves and future generations. Scares the hell out of me.
By the way.... Isn't there also a psychological theory (theory as in: All signs point to it, but it can't be entirely proved) saying that nobody (murders, dictators, mercenaries, etc) considers themselves the "bad guy" in their own mind unless they're very seriously disturbed. If so then most "playing as the bad guy" is fiction, as it's just another character in a story... and "bad guy" is either determined by storytelling that's removed from reality (quite common... the writer's only human) or by the player's own morale compass... which is fine.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/5/2006 1:20 AM · Permalink · Report
It's okay to examine other points of view, but if they reveal themselves as dangerous and destructive, it's not okay to identify yourself with them.
MDMaster (164) on 6/5/2006 10:59 AM · Permalink · Report
That is the case with most of the news we get feed over tv and newspaper. They always show things like nobody was expecting anything to happen, at least here in Italy. It always happens that when somebody murders his own wife, or neighbour or son whatever, someone always gets to say: 'that is so weird, he was such a good person, so calm and generous.' Well then something IS wrong. Either everybody is refusing to say 'hey, he was a schizo, that was bound to happen' or the news most of the time is incomplete and they are either looking for viewers to get enraged at the criminal or to get pitiful at the victim. Most of the time, reality is much more complex than 'good guy vs. bad guy', tv and newspaper usually avoid that kind of truth cause it's quite difficult to explain to viewers (who suffer from the 'I watch tv, ergo I'm stupid' syndrome).
Indra was here (20760) on 6/5/2006 5:22 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start WildKard wrote--] [Q2 --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] That's exactly what bothers me! There's nothing more dangerous than trying to see the events from the point of view of bad people! That's the biggest moral disease post-war Western world has ever known! [/Q2 --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
No, the biggest moral disease is refusing to examine other points of view because they're already classified as "evil". If one is morally superior, they can justify all kinds of actions to wipe out "evil". One of the more popular thoughts is that "evil" would have no rights or justification to exist, therefore any action against it, no matter how immoral otherwise, would be moral in this context to wipe out the "evil". However even if we do not take this case and suggest that every action against "evil" follows the strict moral teachings of the person in charge, by refusing to examine other points of view... one is still locked within an echo chamber and is unable to accept any alternatives to his actions. That is the kind of thinking that scares me the most and is often preached by "good people" under the intention of protecting themselves and future generations. Scares the hell out of me.
By the way.... Isn't there also a psychological theory (theory as in: All signs point to it, but it can't be entirely proved) saying that nobody (murders, dictators, mercenaries, etc) considers themselves the "bad guy" in their own mind unless they're very seriously disturbed. If so then most "playing as the bad guy" is fiction, as it's just another character in a story... and "bad guy" is either determined by storytelling that's removed from reality (quite common... the writer's only human) or by the player's own morale compass... which is fine. [/Q --end WildKard wrote--]
Fer crying out loud. Morality is subjective opinion handed via cultural, religious, political (etc) doctrine. Doesn't history explain that fact explicitly? Moral values change. Compare "morality issues" of each country, culture, religion every couple hundred of years.
Here's some examples:
- Slavery. No problem during biblical times, Roman history, etc.
- Beheading a dude. No problem for the Samurai.
- Autopsy. No problem now, was once considered blasphemy.
- Torture. Mandatory when you used to wield a sword.
- Cruelty to animals. Tell that to 3rd world citizens.
- Save the rain forest! (Hey, if you western dudes burned your trees, why can't we?)
- If they don't believe in our god, kill'em! (says every religious fanatic)
- ...and the list goes on and on. And will continue to change and evolve as long as human civilization exists.
Bad, good, white, black, grey, purple. It's all doctrine. Each of us cannot be totally objective since we are subject to the influence of others: Family, society, state, religion, friends, etc. We judge good and bad by the doctrines embedded in us since childhood until we are old enough to take a more personal approach to our own believes though still heavily influenced by those doctrines.
<hr />But in relation to games, most of us "adults" as I have seen in the forum does have interest in violence or anything "bad". However as our civilization has accustomed law and the concept of "civil society", we have become more docile because neccesity demands it. 1000 years ago, our ancestors would have laughed our concept of "introducing violence to children" and our moral issues of violence and evil. Alexander the Great was king and killing dudes at what age? 14.
People from my country for example. When tribal genocide (war between one tribe and another for the purpose of extermination), some of my fellow citizens may condemn it, but many others like myself find it quite natural...culturally. Sure from a western point of view you would be speechless on how anyone would think genocide to be "not wrong". But western cultures have evolved differently with every other individual cultural around the world. Thus different priorities.
My version of evil may mean nothing to you. Your version of evil may mean rightious cause for me and so on.
Like ol'Trixter said. It's just is. In the end, everything we believe is, is just to avoid Homo homini lupus. Reality sucks. Really. Especially when anything you believe in, really doesn't mean squat.
Note: If your an idealist and your beliefs are extremely important for your mental well-being and personal happiness. IGNORE everything I just posted. This kind of knowledge ISN'T worth it. Seriously.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/5/2006 9:29 PM · Permalink · Report
Thnaks for the lecture, Inderanta, but I do beleive you just repeated what me and a few others have been trying to say since the beginning of the argument. I even used your #1 example and # 5 example before this. You pretty much just said what I've been trying to say all along: good and evil are just perspectives, based on our doctrine, experiences, influences, family, etc. What may be good for one person might not be good for the other. What might be evil fro one person might not be evil for another. Many others here have been saying that too.
We could go on with this, but I think we just keep reapeating ourselves.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/6/2006 2:39 AM · Permalink · Report
Inderanta and Matt, the kind of thinking you are protecting is awful and leads to degradation and ultimately to annihilation of all values humanity has been learning and accumulating during its history. Good and evil are not relative. To say they are means to ignore the titanic struggle human being is involved in. To ignore the moral meaning of the world is pretty much the same as to deny its existence. If good and evil are relative, then there's nothing to strive to, and our deeds have no impact on ourselves and the world. This idea leads directly to suicide. And it's also fundamentally wrong.
I think the three of us should better discuss this in e-mails, because we are off topic now :-)
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/6/2006 7:17 PM · Permalink · Report
Maybe we should start a new topic on this forum. I dont think theres a rule against debates on the forum, is there? The email would be private but it would be hard with all the mixed up responses and late emails and whatnot.
Like I sadi before, I really think we'd be repeating ourselves, we've gotten to the root of our problem, now its just a matter of your beleifs. Would it be worth it?
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/7/2006 12:42 AM · Permalink · Report
No. But did you ever see two people stop discussing just because they have nothing new to say any more? ;-)
Trixter (8952) on 6/7/2006 5:30 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q]Good and evil are not relative.[/q]
Sure they are. Here's one example: The Crusades. From the 11th to 13th centuries, soldiers went to war in the name of Christ, murdering tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people over two centries. If you lived in that time period, whose side would you be on? Were the crusaders good because they were staunchly religious and felt pious fury towards heathens, or evil because they murdered anyone who didn't adhere to their beliefs?
[q]If good and evil are relative, then there's nothing to strive to, and our deeds have no impact on ourselves and the world. This idea leads directly to suicide.[/q]
Well, it certainly doesn't have to. I'm still here ;-) But I disagree with your view that our actions have no impact on the world if they're not done in a particular context. I certainly didn't have any particular moral or ethical motive when I called Brian that night, and I think we'd all agree that action had a major impact on the world :-)
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/7/2006 5:46 AM · Permalink · Report
To answer your question: if I lived in that time period, I would have probably been killed. Being Jewish and all :-(
But seriously, evil doesn't become good if it is supported by the masses or official ideology. The inability of some people to distinguish between good and evil doesn't mean these two are relative. The actions of the Crusaders were evil no matter how many people thought they were good. Same as the actions of the Nazis were evil no matter how many people thought they were good. The false relativity is only in the minds of those erroneously thinking people, not in reality.
chirinea (47504) on 6/7/2006 6:00 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]To answer your question: if I lived in that time period, I would have probably been killed. Being Jewish and all :-(
But seriously, evil doesn't become good if it is supported by the masses or official ideology. The inability of some people to distinguish between good and evil doesn't mean these two are relative. The actions of the Crusaders were evil no matter how many people thought they were good. Same as the actions of the Nazis were evil no matter how many people thought they were good. The false relativity is only in the minds of those erroneously thinking people, not in reality. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
But then again, where IS reality, if not in people minds? Really, I think you can try to see through the eyes of the Crusaders or the Nazis, and maybe you'll realize that at least some of them wouldn't see evil in their attitudes.
I can ensure you, I do not endorse any act of them, on the contrary, I'm totally against the violence they've done. But I really don't think that "eye for an eye" is a fair solution to the question.
This isn't off topic since we're discussing if it would be a good thing (good for every one of us) to play as "the bad guy". Well, I would say that I can't imagine a game that could be really profound to make you feel like someone that has some psychological disturb. If it could be done, then I think that those games should exist, so people would start thinking twice before doing the same that those who they call "evil" do.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/7/2006 6:04 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] I can ensure you, I do not endorse any act of them, on the contrary, I'm totally against the violence they've done. But I really don't think that "eye for an eye" is a fair solution to the question. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--] If those who opposed and stopped the Nazis were thinking like that, the Nazis would have won the war.
chirinea (47504) on 6/7/2006 5:48 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]I think the three of us should better discuss this in e-mails, because we are off topic now :-) [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Don't do this! I'm just reading and enjoying the discussion. And be sure, I didn't write anything more before due to time limitations only...
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/8/2006 12:43 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'm really not arguing whether morals are reflexive or not. Though I do beleive that they are, what I'm trying to say is that morals are different to different people. Oleg, I know you beleive in one form of the truth, but I dont. I beleive in many truths, and I think that every truth is different for every person. So I beleive that every good and evil is different for each person. I dont beleive something is permanently good or permanently bad just because it is that way. People view different things bad or good. Its different to every person.
And its not just something clear cut like Naziism or the Crusades. Its stuff like abortion, God, philosophy, birth control. Their good and bad to different people.
And the same goes with people. People arent clear cut good or bad. Just because a person kills someone doesnt mean hes evil. Just because a person has an abortion doesnt mean shes evil. Thats why its important to pklay video games where you are the "bad-guy". Things are always different to other people, its important to keep a universal perspective of things. I always thought being an atheist was the stupeditst thing ever, and when I was in first grade I called an atheist an idiot because she didnt beleive in God. Now I am one! (an atheist, not a god :-) )
Theres always two sides to ever story, both equally as good and bad as the other. There is no definite evil side to everything, the Nazis even beleived they were doing good, so its important to recognizer the other side to find the motivations and people behind the evilnesss society likes to cast over things.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/8/2006 1:31 AM · Permalink · Report
Maybe I haven't made myself clear: I'm not against analyzing the psychology of evil people and finding out what drives them. Also, the things you mentioned (God, birth control, etc.) are most certainly relative. But you said yourself that Nazism or Crusades are "clear cut". So you also have no doubts that there is clear evil in the world. There are many situations in which it is impossible to determine what's right and what's wrong; but not all the situations are like this. In such clear cases, I believe it is morally dubious to let the player control the dark side without any reservations.
Don't understand me wrong: I'm all for introducing complex moral problems into games. Take Shin Megami Tensei: depending on your style of playing, you can choose between three totally different philosophies. The game is made in such a way that it's impossible to say which side is good and which is evil. Each philosophy has something attractive and something repulsive at the same time. I love such kind of moral choices in a game. But I don't like it when a game forces me to be clearly bad. It's just wrong.
Indra was here (20760) on 6/9/2006 6:57 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Maybe I haven't made myself clear: I'm not against analyzing the psychology of evil people and finding out what drives them. Also, the things you mentioned (God, birth control, etc.) are most certainly relative. But you said yourself that Nazism or Crusades are "clear cut". So you also have no doubts that there is clear evil in the world. There are many situations in which it is impossible to determine what's right and what's wrong; but not all the situations are like this. In such clear cases, I believe it is morally dubious to let the player control the dark side without any reservations.
[/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Sir, the evil is clear cut because the subjects defining them no longer live in that age of period. Let's put it backwards. Imagine what the ideals we believe TODAY would be considered CLEARCUT EVIL back in the day dudes were wielding swords with permanent bad hairdays.
If the Axis (Nazi, Japan, etc.) in World War II were clear, undisputely EVIL in that time of period, would not every country in the world declare war towards them? Plus, back then Soviet Union still existed as a nation and an ideology of communism, weren't they also considered EVIL by other nations?
If I was born in during the crusades, I would probably join and kill every dang infidel in my sight. Why? Because back then, the crusades by the masses were deemed as GOOD. Hey, killing a dude means going to heavan? Back then, that was a really good deal. 500 years later, THEN we say it was evil.
Look at now. United States invading Iraq, technically we can say it's evil, but tell that to the Republicans and oil manufacturers. When it comes to world issues, it never was about good and evil. It was about all about interests. Good an evil when it comes to politics is just a guise for the masses who prefer to live in the lies of idealism than the harsh truth of realism.
*More of this, and we'll probably need a new forum thread for politics, philosophy and everything else that has nothing to do with games. Proof that gamers do not spend 24/7 in front of a blasted monitor. :)
Trixter (8952) on 6/10/2006 6:41 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] More of this, and we'll probably need a new forum thread for politics, philosophy and everything else that has nothing to do with games. Proof that gamers do not spend 24/7 in front of a blasted monitor. :) [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]
As long as we don't hit on libel, I'm glad to see all the discussion. I'm a firm believer in the free marketplace of ideas.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/11/2006 2:09 AM · Permalink · Report
You're still missing the point. Evil can be relative in the eyes of people, but it doesn't mean it is objectively relative.
Trixter (8952) on 6/11/2006 4:55 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]You're still missing the point. Evil can be relative in the eyes of people, but it doesn't mean it is objectively relative. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
I don't follow. Can you give me an example of something that is "objectively relative"?
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/12/2006 4:01 AM · Permalink · Report
Sorry, I'm having troubles making myself clear... What I wanted to say is that even though good and evil might be subjectively relative, i.e. large quantities of people might confuse them with each other, certain ideologies deliberately substitute one for the other, etc., - there are still objective good and objective evil out there. "Objective" as in "absolute", "independent of any subjective opinion". Good and evil exist as absolute categories no matter how they are reflected in the minds of human beings.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/12/2006 7:03 PM · Permalink · Report
No no, right I completely understand what you have been saying from the start. The things we have been saying have been contradicting that, saying that something that was once absolutely evil can become absolutely good, and anywhere else in betwen, depending on human perception of it.
I understnad what you are saying. I dont like it however, because it makes it seem like humans cannot be in control of their own destiny, like we cannot control our own universe. I beleive that humans have the ability to choose what is right and change the rules accordingly. If the rules and morals are locked in humans are locked in as well. No room to expand, no room to change.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/13/2006 1:22 AM · Permalink · Report
Man, you really misunderstand me here... I was actually trying to prove myself this very point! Look, if good and evil are relative, the choices you make are pretty pointless. In order for the choice to have any value, good and evil must be absolute entities.
But that doesn't mean that there is one code of morals and rules that defines good and evil! While good and evil are absolute, rules are not. My point is that human being is always confronted by the choice between good and evil; but what he chooses and how he chooses is entirely up to him.
Indra was here (20760) on 6/16/2006 5:53 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Look, if good and evil are relative, the choices you make are pretty pointless. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Yes, indeed it is pointless. But animals don't really care do they? And instictively, we aren't much different.
No such thing as objective by the way. I do agree with the term of "less subjective".
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/17/2006 2:02 AM · Permalink · Report
Okay, I see what you're saying there then. But then also the problem is that more often than not it is hard to determine which side is good and which side is evil. Yes, many times there is always a good side and a bad side. Like maybe some sort of superhero vs. villain, or on saturday morning cartoons, and sometimes in real life but in everyday matters theres much more too it. Both sides are good people just having a big conflict. So then who is the absolute good and the absolute evil then if both sides present equally just causes?
Indra was here (20760) on 6/17/2006 6:10 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]Okay, I see what you're saying there then. But then also the problem is that more often than not it is hard to determine which side is good and which side is evil. Yes, many times there is always a good side and a bad side. Like maybe some sort of superhero vs. villain, or on saturday morning cartoons, and sometimes in real life but in everyday matters theres much more too it. Both sides are good people just having a big conflict. So then who is the absolute good and the absolute evil then if both sides present equally just causes? [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
There isn't any sir. Back in the day when dudes where eating dudes, it wasn't about good and evil. It was about survival of the fittest, fighing for food resources, natural selection and technically everything the average predator does for a living (while driving taxi's on weekends).
A couple hundred/thousand years of evolution, man became more powerful in numbers and evolved groups of small alliances. The standard caveman doctrine of "Hulk Smash!" whenever, whoever doesn't work as freely as it used to since another hulk would smash you in revenge or in defence of their clan/group/nation.
This continous homo homini lupus (dude is a tazmanian devil to another dude) tends to get irritating after awhile, so man comes up with an ingenious idea to stop fighting or at least threaten the other dude without much bloodshed: Gods. Since natural disasters and too many stars in the sky back then seemed to be the work of supernatural forces (which historically probably was an easy way for parents to threaten their children to shut up for a minute), identifying these forces as individuals only seemed the next logical step of human evolution: Introduction to Polytheism.
Now things got a little complicated, since we have too many men and too many gods who's temper doesn't seem much different than the local priest interpreting their divine messages, some dude who had a problem memorizing all the gods names, their too many rules of "thou shall not everything" and obviously too many different priests to bribe on a daily basis came up with the unthinkable: One God, aka Monotheism and accidently: spirtual monopoly.
One God seemed like a perfect idea, since an ultimate one mega-dude seems more elegant than a bunch of wanna-be gods. Unfortunatly, since the universe has passed the "Anti-Monoply Act" in our genes, soon many "One Gods" came emerging, and some of those other Polytheism loving dudes decided their gods where in fact the same dude but with some personality issues.
Now in modern civilization, the power of the "One God" seems to be diminishing, since apparently being religious doesn't stop your from being an idiot. And since the role of "rule of law" and law enforcement is taken much more seriously, in addition to "more power to the people" than dictators, the role of good and evil once dictated by indiduals, to groups, to power groups, to religious groups in now handed to the law and people protecting the system.
<hr />It's like what they taught me in law school. If I smash your car, my perception of justice (good-evil, black-white, nice-not nice) will be different from your perception of justice. Thus, yours and my good-and-evil are in fact products of subjective interests and our ABILITY to ENFORCE our views.
Good and evil doesn't exist. It's just a logical but lame excuse for our inability to explain pain and suffering. The same reason why we came up with the notion of God and his goons. The origin of good and evil is more or less the same source as religion, morals and every other intangable concept: We got it from our parents, family, friends, read it from a book etc.
If Good and Evil were trully absolute and instinctively existed without the process learning, a child (assumed to be untainted by logical choice and social influences) would not steal, hit a friend or any of those "bad" things. To a child, it's not about good or bad. It's just action and reaction towards his/her personal interests. As adults, we just complicate things.
It's not a nice concept, but surely most of us know that reality was never nice to begin with, especially for those who lived outside a "civilized controlled environment".
Thus, ending my persuasive speech cough, I conclude that Good and Evil are in fact products of interest, complicated by our capablity to think and our incapability to comprehend the existence of pain and suffering to us and our loved ones.
These interests/needs/neccesities are identified as the following primary groups:
1. Need to Eat and Drink
2. Need to go to the toilet
3. Need to deliver sperms to a particular ovum
4. Need for personal ego and degradation and control of others not following our suit. Usually simply translated as: Need for Power.
Dude. You wouldn't care squat about good and evil if your were starving. Simply put. Unfortunately, I've been in a similar position (not starving though), so I speak from personal experience. Not much choice involved when it's about survival.
God I hope I'm wrong. Doubt it.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/17/2006 7:56 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Exactly, there isnt any. A very long, but elegant response.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/18/2006 3:18 AM · Permalink · Report
Then in this case there is no good and evil, but two sides with morally equally convincing (or equally unconvincing) stands. Happens too. But it's a rare case.
n][rvana (1823) on 6/18/2006 10:35 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Then in this case there is no good and evil, but two sides with morally equally convincing (or equally unconvincing) stands. Happens too. But it's a rare case. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
No, it's NOT a rare case, it's everyday life!!! That's what we've been trying to say since the beginning. But I think that this is becoming a vicious circle, and in the end, only ppl with a certain ideology will experience media (books, films, games, etc) in which the protagonist is the "bad" guy.
Unicorn, if you cannot "let yourself go" and experience those types of media then IMHO you're just narrowing your vision. I mind, you won't become a killer if you view a movie like "Summer Of Sam", but will miss a new experience. If your beliefs are well founded, then there's nothing to lose. I played "Catechumen" for PC and I didn't become a Catholic, while I also played the Columbine game and didn't become a killer. Don't be close-minded and neglect yourself the experience to judge a given media for its quality, not for its content. Just see through it. Don't forget that as you were taught to have certain beliefs, you can also learn that expanding your array of experiences will open your mind for new things, given the fact that in traditional media, you're not risking anything, all it takes to stop that experience is to press the off button or close your book.
And I doubt that any media is powerful enough to shake one's convictions, but if this happens, then it's because they are not very well founded after all.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/19/2006 1:08 AM · Permalink · Report
But it's a rare case.
I agree with N][rvana, its not as rare as you think it is, and many of the situations that video games portray often are these situations. If you look at the other sdies of every video game villain you can see many a times that they have equally as just of a cause as the protagonist.
In real life it is quite the opposite, it is often hard to determine which side is good and bad. It is very rare that there is an absolute bad and absolute good in real life.
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/19/2006 3:13 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I don't like games that let you play as bad people not because I'm afraid they might make me (or someone else) a killer, shatter someone's beliefs, or whatever. I don't like them because they are tasteless. I don't like tasteless things. Period.
Slug Camargo (583) on 6/19/2006 3:22 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]I don't like games that let you play as bad people not because I'm afraid they might make me (or someone else) a killer, shatter someone's beliefs, or whatever. I don't like them because they are tasteless. I don't like tasteless things. Period. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] But you often say such games "shouldn't exist", which smells like censorship, and I'm convinced that censorship is a really dangerous animal to unleash...
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/19/2006 3:31 AM · Permalink · Report
Censorship is a delicate issue... proposed new forum thread: should censorship exist? :/
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/19/2006 4:53 PM · Permalink · Report
I think I'll go and make two new threads, one continuing this thread and another for censorship.
Anyway, Unicorn, I could definitely understand that now. If you don't want to play a game because it is tasteless, that is understandable. But what happens when the video game lets you play as the evil person isn't tasteless? Like the bad guy is still bad but it isnt all hack and slash. Then would that be okay to play?
Unicorn Lynx (181788) on 6/20/2006 12:31 AM · Permalink · Report
In my opinion, the concept of forcing you play as the bad guy is tasteless in itself. Therefore, a game that follows such concept is automatically qualified as tasteless in my book.
Note that I talk only about games that force you to be the bad guy. This doesn't apply to games in which you have the choice of being either good, bad, or something between.