Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Wii - Console and Game Discussions' started by SlyGuy, Jul 21, 2007.
Someone record this on a cd and play it next to Jack Thompson while he sleeps. Hell, if you can get close to Jack Thompson in his sleep, forget about the cd, and just kill him
Funny what a name can do.
I read that article and found it a very retarded point of view, until I came to the name of the author and started to second guess myself, reading it again and searching the text for wisdom I somehow missed while trying very hard reinterpret things in a way that would counter my initial opinion.
That didn't work, and it's still retarded.
Why? Because if you got all the people that crap on videogames because they are violent to play games themselves, with the significant difference that you would do so by offering them cutesy non-violent games to play, you will create an even bigger rift between players of violent games and an even bigger mass of people that would be of the oppinion that games shouldn't be violent to be fun ("Why should violent games be legal? Look at me, I play Brain Training and Wii Sports and I'm having fun! We should ban those evil, no good violent games!")
If you are going to get more people playing games, but are doing so by offering them non-violent "educational/novelty" games, you will just have created more people that oppose violent games (current (violent) video games weren't enough to win these people over, but the DS and Wii's kiddy educational/active/novelty games did accomplish this).
Since all the people are added to the list of gamers, a larger stake of gamers will oppose violent video games.
And the next time they get around to vote, you'll have hordes of cooking mama/brain training-type people saying they want more fluffy crap instead of violent games. A larger demographic has been added, and more developers will leave the violence aside to develop games for these people.
Shigeru, I like you and all, and I'm sure you're a lot "wiser" than me, but you missed the ball on this one...
One of the things that has always saddened me about society is how non-gamers look at the hobby of video gaming. For some reason this passtime is relegated to "geek" or "nerd" status. You can't really go on a date and talk about video games, or really bring it up with anyone you are trying to impress because it's just not "cool". However, talking about the latest movie or television show is perfectly fine. Someone who sits on their couch for 2 hours and watches primetime TV will face no social discrimination if they feel like discussing the shows they watched. On the other hand, if a gamer walks into a cool party and decides to start chatting about how great the graphics are in the lastest video game, they'll start getting funny looks and likely end up as the butt of a joke or two.
Here's a little anecdote from a few years back. When I was redoing my resume after University, my alumni councellor suggested I remove "video games" from my list of personal interests because it is seen as a time waster. Playing soccer, however, was OK. So one pass time is looked upon as trash while another method of entertainment is seen as a valuable learning tool. I could talk for hours about the things I learned from video games: micromanagement from Civilization, social negotiation and teamwork from World of Warcraft, strategy from Risk, etc. etc. But none of that mattered because the general population cannot see video games as anything more than electronic fluff.
I think what Nintendo is doing is great for the industry as perhaps finally video games will make it into the collective consciousness of the world and be seen as both an interesting passtime and a valuable learning tool.
Civlization, Warcraft etc. are not considererd controversial by any measure. What about the so called violent games? GTA, Manhunt, Counter-Strike etc.. What can you learn from those except the consequences of a bullet to your head?
I know Miyamoto is not a sucker for violent games, and I'm not either, however I could enjoy those games for the (sick) enjoyment I got out of the action. Honestly, looking back at what I did playing those games, carrying a chainsaw, a combat knife etc. to the other people in the game, I feel it was all pretty much braindead action going on.
This is actually my standpoint on most violent games nowadays.
Except for perhaps telling a perverted story in the case of Manhunt, those games doesn't grant me much other than the action-movie complex of an unused brain. The entertainment is so temporary and as soon as you turn off that console or computer it's out of your life. It's much like smoking in some way. You take a few cigs a day and your life'll be shortened away with or without you knowing it.
No, I say hurrah (!) to Princess Peach! She will at least stay with you to haunt you in your dreams.
Well, actually, I was focusing more on the first paragraph of that quote, where he talked about video games re-entering popular culture. He proposes that the more people that play and enjoy video games, the more they will understand what the medium has to offer. As someone who has often begrudged the fact that video games have been seen as almost a "bad habit", I'm excited to see that this is slowly changing.
To answer your question I will compare the video game industry to the film industry (I know I'm not the first to do so). Games that are violent for violence's sake are like your slasher horror films. You are grossed out, terrified yet somewhat intrigued by violence that you would not (hopefully!) experience in your normal life. These are rarely viewed as quality films. However, when extreme violence is used in the right context and manner it can be a powerful tool to drive home a story or a message. Think about the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. Very violent, yet very powerful in drawing the audience into the realities of war. Same goes for some of the gangster movies. There is a high level of violence, but it serves a purpose and enhances the realism of the production.
Perhaps my favourite "violent" video game is God of War. It is also one of the few games that effectively links violence to the story and puts it in context. The excessive gore makes sense given the personality and motivations of the protagonist. The violence is woven into the very fabric of the story in a way that is seamless and sometimes quite powerful (like when Kratos has to sacrifice a living human being in order to progress).
Society has accepted violence as a storytelling tool in most other forms of media and it is only a matter of time before they give the same respect to video games. That, however, will only happen after the mainstream media stops looking at video games as a "child's toy" and begins to understand that it is a complex and very powerful medium of entertainment and immersive storytelling with a much broader appeal. Every movie is not "Disney's Sleeping Beauty" and every video game is not "Mario: Sunshine". These stereotypes need to be broken before non-gamers can truly judge video games.
I do not know about you but should anyone I associate with or someone even in earshot confess to watching the latest and "greatest" reality TV they will get the piss ripped out of them for a considerable amount of time.
I could spout some arguments for and against the original topic but:
dancing (almost every sort at one time)
non state sponsored religion
previous state sponsored religion (or a state sponsored one that got hastily dropped when it no longer towed the party line)
lack of religion
overwillingness to get religion
differences in religion
differences in interpretation of relgion
Rock and roll
"foreigners" both acceptance of and lack of acceptance.
visiting foreign countries
Metal + any one of the 9000000000....000000....000000...... subgenres
"wild" west films
Sci fi films
I am pretty sure I have spoke to someone involved with or indulged in all of the above, as have numerous others I have met, heard of and such.
alcohol. best example there is.
1 of the worst drugs in the world, but universally accepted.
I hate the videogames-make-your-brain-melt-and-influence-your-every-decision argument. I play Pokemon, do I go around stuffing rats into red and white tennis balls? I play PacMan, do I lock myself in a dark room with blue walls listening to repetitive techno music eating yellow pills running away from multicoloured ghosts?
Grargh, that really gets on my nerves
THATS ALREADY A QUOTE
As has already been said, video games are the comic books, or rock music of this generation : an easy target for lazy politicians who can safely attack virtual problems instead of adressing real ones.
I don't give a fuck about other peoples' opinions when I enjoy *my* pastime in the privacy of *my* home, and neither should any of you.
Politicians love those taxes