I love violent video games...

[Spider AL]

It's the same deal as with movies. They don't make people crazy, they just make the ones who already are crazy more creative

Actually copying the killings in movies makes them more unoriginal, and therefore less creative, surely...

 

But say, I have an idea. We hate violence? Then let's ban the war in Iraq. That seems to be a lot more violent then then the 1s and 0s in our plastic-covered silicon chips.

Hee hee, yes! So many of the ravening fundamentalists that scream "ban these games!" are staunch supporters of neoconservatism and its middle-eastern warmongering. Fabulous hypocrisy.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Check out this review of Doom III. Then check out this review of a similiar sort of game.

Hypocrisy.

 

Look around thier site. It seems anything with ANY mention of the occult or hell or magic that is marked down.

 

I would have thought they would enjoy Painkiller , seeying as it involves killing the Devil's henchmen and you are fighting on God's side.

But no. They complain about gore (I thought demons dieying gruesomely is a good thing), Satanic content (Observe, you are fighting AGAINST it) and Eve's nudity (what the hell is she supposed to be wearing).

Anyway, the Bible features voilence, gore, the occult and Eve running around naked, but they're fine with that.

 

Please don't consider this post an attack against Christianity though. It IS an attack on fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy though.

[lukeiamyourdad]

 

I love these guys. Gave me a good laugh.

[kipperthefrog]

Have you seen the screenshots for "the suffering?" I generaly like violent video games, however, games about all out torture makes me feel sad. I don't like zombie games either for some reason.

 

I do like Hitman and Theif. Those are violent stealth games.

[Spider AL]

I find Thief a very moral game, because one loses levels (depending on skill setting) for killing innocent people, or killing people at all. It's also damn good fun. Thief 3 was excellent, though a little short.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I find Thief a very moral game, because one loses levels (depending on skill setting) for killing innocent people, or killing people at all. It's also damn good fun. Thief 3 was excellent, though a little short.

 

What did you think of the Shalebridge Cradle?

[Spider AL]

It was great! Not since Silent Hill 1 have I appreciated a horror-atmosphere more.

[kipperthefrog]

(i tried to make a christmas avatar, but it turned ot kinda fuzzy. I'll work on it later...)

 

I had nightmares about the shalebridge cradle, it was so scary. remember those guys with those cages around their heads? those were awful at first. the stone walkers and the keeper assasins were a walk in the park next to those guys.

 

I heard they were going to make a "modern" thief becuase "medieval thugs run it's course.". i don't like the idea, for thief is about garrett and his world. Ipersonaly have my own idea.

 

if they are getting tired of medieval thugs, garrett travels around the world. garrett can go to the middle east type place and persions with turbins could be enimies, garrett could also visit an asian themed place and sneak and fight samurai types. garret cold also go to a tropical island themed place with tiki huts and native canibals.

 

what do you think?

[Spider AL]

I think Thief 4 had better have Garrett as the main character, or Eidos Interactive will be checking the dark corners of their offices for ME for the forseeable future.

 

Making a Thief game without Garrett would be like making a Jedi Knight game without Kyle!

 

And yeah, the cradle was horrific. They really did a good job on the creep-factor.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by Spider AL

 

Making a Thief game without Garrett would be like making a Jedi Knight game without Kyle!

 

they kinda DID it. you create your own jedi and Kyle is the mentor.

 

Remember that girl Garrett cought picpocketing him? maybie Theif 4 will be about her and Garrett is the mentor.

[Spider AL]

they kinda DID it. you create your own jedi and Kyle is the mentor.

Ahh that wasn't Jedi Knight series fare though, it was Jedi Academy... At least that would be my excuse if I were Raven.

 

Remember that girl Garrett cought picpocketing him? maybie Theif 4 will be about her and Garrett is the mentor.

This brings up an interesting question, which is better, playing as a character of your own gender, or a character of another gender? I know many male players who used to use female avatars in JK, because they didn't want to look at a man's backside for hours on end.

 

Likewise I myself felt compelled to use a male avatar, because that was MY representation in the game world, MY avatar. So it had to be like me. That's the way I saw it anyway.

 

Downside: I had to look at Kyle's womanly bum a lot.

[Shok_Tinoktin]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Ahh that wasn't Jedi Knight series fare though, it was Jedi Academy... At least that would be my excuse if I were Raven.

 

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy is the official title if I'm not mistaken, so that is hardly a legitamite excuse. Nonetheless, your point stands. I was dissapointed when I first heard that you don't get to be Kyle in JA (still dont like that btw). On the other hand, I care much more about what the gameplay is like, then what character I am controlling.

[Spider AL]

Oh, as long as the game wasn't titled "Star Wars: Jedi Knight III: Jedi Academy" It's legitimate. I don't mind playing a random character in a side-game every so often, as long as the JK series proper continues with the bearded-one as the main character.

[lukeiamyourdad]

The problem is Kyle is now too powerful. An excuse for him to restart at "Lvl 1" is hard to find.

 

This has gotten very off topic.

 

I sense Skinwalker coming in.

[kipperthefrog]

Agred! Violence in video games is the subject at hand.

 

get this:

 

there are also people who beleive NURSERY RYMES are violent.

 

-CHECK IT OUT-

 

if you think humpty-dumpty and jack and jill are bad for kids, GET A LIFE!

[Spider AL]

Well, those old tales did contain murder and mayhem aplenty. Violence has been part of childhood storytelling since time immemorial. Think Grimm's fairytales. The idea that it does kids any harm is ridiculous of course. TV though, graphic imagery is somewhat different from hearing how humpty fell down, isn't it.

 

PS: Kyle doesn't have to restart at Padawan level at all. Don't know why people keep saying that. Keep him powerful. Make enemies more challenging.

[kipperthefrog]

It just shows how far people will go to control children's entertainment.

 

disgusting control freaks...

[lukeiamyourdad]

Hey we shouldn't tell them the story of Snow White and the Seven dwarfs because it contains lots of sexual undertones.

 

I mean, seven lonely men in the woods with a hot young woman...you get the idea.

 

I know it is stupid and that's what it is, trying to do some nitpicking on stuff that have been told for eons. Hearing the story of Humpty Dumpty didn't f*cked up generations of kids.

 

PS: I know it is a possible solution but somewhat a boring one. I mean, there would be no more chance for Kyle to evolve. The fun of playing a character is to see him evolve through the game. Of course, when all is given at the beginning, it can get boring quite fast.

[Spider AL]

I mean, seven lonely men in the woods with a hot young woman...you get the idea.

Urgh. And thus about a million dirty movies were born.

 

Anyone who's had any experience with REAL violence knows that make-believe and reality are worlds apart. What encourages violence among children is things like beating them, turning a blind eye to bullying in schools, etcetera.

 

PS: Characters can evolve in other ways than gaining force powers... Plus, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think up different powers (and different applications for the powers) to give him at different stages of the game.

[stingerhs]

well, to quite simply be myself, i think that parents should simply abide by the esrb system for games. on the esrb label (which is on every game box), it tells you exactly why the game is rated the way it is if the rating isn't "E".

 

making a list about what games not to buy your children is just plain stupidity. their morals are not everyone's morals by a long shot, so why try to impose it on everyone else?

 

i think that if the rating system was advertised or something, it would help parents understand what they are buying for their kids in the first place. if they can understand the mpaa rating system (for movies), then they can understand the esrb rating system just as easily.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Spider AL

1.Urgh. And thus about a million dirty movies were born.

 

2.Anyone who's had any experience with REAL violence knows that make-believe and reality are worlds apart. What encourages violence among children is things like beating them, turning a blind eye to bullying in schools, etcetera.

 

PS: Characters can evolve in other ways than gaining force powers... Plus, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think up different powers (and different applications for the powers) to give him at different stages of the game.

 

1. Bow wow chick Bow Wow...

 

2. A sad reality. People are simply so lazy. It is so much easier to ban video games and other forms of violent media then to try and solve the real social problems.

 

PS: In an FPS with a certain RPG element, you need a character that can evolve in the "level" way. He's already a master, what more can he be, Jedi God? The only way they could pull it off is by having a very good storyline where instead of level development we get a psychological one à la Max Payne.

 

Originally posted by stingerh

i think that if the rating system was advertised or something, it would help parents understand what they are buying for their kids in the first place. if they can understand the mpaa rating system (for movies), then they can understand the esrb rating system just as easily.

 

But the people don't understand the ratings. They see rated M: "Ok that must be violent ". So they don't bother even checking it out. The ERSB is still better then the MPAA. Those guys are really...well...stupid...

[TK-8252]

The rating system says you can't play a Star Wars until you're thirteen. Sorry, but there's no reason why only teenagers should be able to play a Star Wars game. Star Wars is rated PG, not PG-13. Therefore the games should be E, not T.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Here in Europe we got the PEGI system. It goes like this...

3+ (haven't played any games from here)

7+ (The Sims and The Simpsons: Hit and Run got this rating)

12+ (Star Wars: KOTOR, Thief 3 and Return of the King got this rating. Suprisingly XIII did as well)

16+ (Painkiller and Deus Ex 2 got this rating)

18+ (havn't played any games from here)

 

Sometimes (here in the UK at least) we get the movie ratings instead of PEGI. Here we go:

 

U= Movies with this rating- All the Star Wars movies exept for AOTC, Finding Nemo

Games with this rating- ????

 

PG= Movies with this rating- Harry Potter series, Jurassic Park series

Games- ???

 

12= Movies with this rating- Second two LOTR movies, Dodgeball, Anchorman, Terminator 3 (!)

Games- ????

 

15= Movies- Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, Bad Santa, Terminator

Games- Max Payne, Mafia, Silent Hill 3

 

18= Movies- Kill Bill 1&2, The Godfather, Face/Off

Games- GTA 3, Vice City, Manhunt, Veitcong (that's the uncensored European version, not the T-rated US version)

[Shok_Tinoktin]

Originally posted by TK-8252

The rating system says you can't play a Star Wars until you're thirteen.

 

Thats not true. There are several games with E or K-A ratings, such as: the X-Wing series, Racer, Rebel Assault (2), etc. Still, you have a good point. I don't see any reason a game like Galactic Battlegrounds should have a T rating.

[stingerhs]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

But the people don't understand the ratings. They see rated M: "Ok that must be violent ". So they don't bother even checking it out. The ERSB is still better then the MPAA. Those guys are really...well...stupid...

ahh, ignorance and laziness. jeez, you'd think that parents could at least turn over the box and check out the rating label. it tells you right on the **** box why the game is rated the way it is. how much more simple can you get??? research isn't too difficult of a concept for them to grasp, is it???

 

*curses parental ignorance*

Originally posted by TK8252

The rating system says you can't play a Star Wars until you're thirteen. Sorry, but there's no reason why only teenagers should be able to play a Star Wars game. Star Wars is rated PG, not PG-13. Therefore the games should be E, not T.

your talking about two completely different rating scales here. ersb scale is designed to be simple so that parents give parents a ballpark figure as to what is in the game before they hand out the game to their kids. the mpaa scale is designed so that the feds won't get involved with fines or other hinderances to their movie being shown.

 

also, a 'PG' rating does not have the same meaning as an 'E' rating. an 'E' rating is really more along the lines of a 'G' rating in theaters.