MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atarileaf
I think that nobody really wants this type of horrible stuff in video games, and even in movies.
I think the main problem with media today, be it video games or movies, is that the people who produce them dont give us WHAT we want but what they THINK we want. Everything has to be so intense, and they do constantly up the violence in many ways. Much is done simply for shock value. But in the end, yeah its all just a bunch of pixels. Everyone is responsible for their actions. Blaming violent behavior on tv and video games is no excuse.
I'm sorry, but people have been making this same argument for centuries about all forms of media. Not so far in our past, certain books were burned and banned because they portrayed interracial relationships or sex outside of marriage. Comic books came under scrutiny in the 1950s for violence and sexual content. People tried to ban Dungeons and Dragons in the 70s and early 80s because of claims that it led to satanic violence. The problem with your argument is that if you go down the road of arguing some kind of overriding cultural moral code, there is no turning back. There are people that have problems with all sorts of things in media and will stop at nothing to see those products banned.
Personally, I prefer games that are intellectually challenging and outside of the AAA shooter/action/adventure genre, but I recognize that graphic violence is a valid form of expression in television, movies and video games and sometimes is central to the storytelling and experience. I don't think our culture or society suffers because of it and frankly, I think we have far more serious and pressing social problems in the world to worry about than video games being too graphic or realistic.
All of this taken for granted, I still think you're missing a core element to my argument. That because of our technology improving, it allows us to journey farther into the darkness of the human imagination, and there is a line I feel has been crossed.
If Skynet were to actually launch and the human race was wiped out because technology took over, wouldn't we want to question what went wrong. How we'd gone to far?
That's all, I just feel like video game violence has gone to far.
That wasn't my point. Of course fictional violence wouldn't be the reason robots kill everyone...
My point was that we shouldn't question the route we are going as a society after it's too late. That there IS a line that ultimately will be crossed the further we travel down this road.
Last edited by ShinobiMan; 07-12-2013 at 08:08 PM.
I think you're continuing to miss my point. People have been arguing this for centuries. People argued it when the printing press was invented and again when radio was invented and again with film and television and every other medium. Every generation argues that the next is worse and that the new technology will be the end of civilization. Ultimately it isn't and people are the same now as they were 100 years ago. Heck, graphically violent movies have been around for many decades and that hasn't resulted in a massive increase in the percentage of sociopaths. In fact, violent crime is down and has been trending down for many, many years in most urban areas. If you don't like a game, just don't buy it. Ultimately, developers and publishers will react in the way that is best for their bottom line.
Here's an interesting article where the author explains why he finds classic gaming more appealing than modern gaming:
http://retrowaretv.com/growing-up-in...hat-isnt-ours/
As for me, classic gaming all the way. My Xbox 360 collects dust, while my NES and SNES are being played regularly. My reasons for not liking modern games very much have mostly already been covered by other people here: too many cutscenes in games, lengthy tutorials and steep learning curves, too much violence and graphic content, too many shooters and Call of Duty clones, etc.
As I've said in my video in the first post, its just all preference. There really is no right or wrong answer here. I prefer simple graphics and gameplay as well as a game that isn't massively huge with too much to do, so that's why I avoid most of today's games.
It all comes down to personal taste.
On Twitter @OfficialRVGA -- My YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialRVGA
http://theretrovideogameaddict.blogspot.com <----- The **Official** blog of The Retro Video Game Addict!
*UPDATED* on 11/4/13 The Retro Video Game Addict reviews: Tekken 2 for the PS1!
I understand what you're saying, I do. I also think what youre saying tries to justify why things are the way they are, and that we should just accept it. I'm glad we didnt take that stance during WWII with Nazi Germany.
I'm just not happy to see Video Gaming go down this road when there was once something so innocent and fun about it.
I feel there is a lot that is morally wrong with what developers are putting into games, especially with how realistic it can now be depicted.
I guess I'm just one of those guys now.
I can understand people not liking gore in video games, and thats ok.
I think some violent games are awesome though, like DOOM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USuAifAFfUU
For the last 20 years DOOM has always been not just a violent, but bloody game. Its a game thats BOTH classic and modern. You take away the blood and gore there is not much left. If you were to impose too many restrictions on the people who create these games, what would get? Alot more uninspired crap like Superman 64. Take out all the violence and you get just 'flying through endless rings' and 'picking up cars and flying away'. Not only is this shit boring but its nonsensical. When did superman ever need to fly through rings, for any reason?
I just dont think its fair to impose moral standards when it comes to what other people consume or produce. Once you start imposing restrictions based on 'morality' where do you stop? And who is fit to judge?
Last edited by bb_hood; 07-13-2013 at 11:20 AM.
Apparently history isn't your strong suit. We didn't go to war with Nazi Germany until we were attacked by the Japanese and Hitler declared war on us. We certainly assisted the British with Lend-Lease among other programs, but we sat out of WWII for more than two years. Indeed, we very quickly worked with many former Nazi scientists and military officers immediately after the war as the Cold War started. Heck, there is pretty good evidence that we even had some knowledge of the Holocaust starting well before joining the war and yet did nothing to help. So, your example is terrible and frankly, this isn't WWII or the Holocaust. This is a tired argument from closed minded people worrying about the choices other people have. Nobody is forcing you to watch or play anything.
I'm not sure why you're comparing Superman 64 with Doom - they're completely different gaming experiences.
You mention that without violence we would have a lot more "uninspired crap". I disagree. Its the heavy reliance on violence and gore that has given birth to uninspired crap as every new FPS tries to out-gore the last guy. Show me a developer that can do something new, take gaming in a new direction, create new genres and new experiences, perhaps without a lick of violence. THEN you may see some inspiration. However as long as every developer sees dollar signs in the pools of ever increasing bloodshed, you won't find any kind of inspiration.
What I personally find interesting is that the fun in video games seems to be directly related to the violence and gore, as your bolded statement above demonstrates.
MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atarileaf
MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atarileaf
To me, there is no distinction between classic gaming and modern gaming. If I'm playing on a 2600 and it's 2013, to me, that is modern gaming. Because I'm gaming in modern times. There's a lot of nonsenical elitism that gets introduced when you start saying stuff like "Well, classic games are better because they laid the framework that newer games completely ruin", and "Newer games are better because of all the technological advancement". It's a lot of hogwash for a lot of games that are excellent in their own rights.
I can imagine a similar situation between people arguing about home appliances.
>Bathroom sinks are awesome!
-Yeah, but not as cool as showers
>At least I can brush my teeth with a sink
-Yeah but you could brush your teeth in a shower
>I could bathe in a sink too, if I really wanted to!
Meaningless bickering. The two are totally different.
Well,when you said fighting i did assume you did mean fighters such as a one on one match.Some people can get into them others can not any more,because how much they have changed.Going back to SFII and Fatal Fury they were more simpler to play and now it's gotten carry away.With what you mention so 'far as combo's go etc i still enjoy the genre but that's just me.For others you mention that you consider modern still i play them,but in a very limited fashion and just not as much.
I do think FPS have over saturated the market.That western developers think it's the only way to make any profit now.
Again, that was just an example. What difference does it make to what extent we helped during WWII... does arguing the validity of my example strengthen your stance on not caring?
Anyway, anyone else feel this has become a tired argument? I'm ready to move on with my life!
I respect that others feel the need to choose one over the other, but respect them more when they keep their reasoning pretty much to themselves.
Especially those who are adamant that one is somehow better than the other. If you feel the need to justify your choice to me for some reason then maybe you should examine why you feel that need instead of boring me with the same old arguments. It's not like the reasoning ever changes.
Time will be when the broadest river dries
And the great cities wane and last descend
Into the dust, for all things have an end