Underserving of human life because they'd rather not play a game that centers around gratuitous violence and racism? Huh, there's something there that's throwing up red flags for me...
actually you have a good point famicom, why does almost every videogame involve killing of some kind? Just think about it, even platformers involve killing, although it is not usually like proper murder
perhaps killing in videogames attracts are natural hunting instinct, if that is so then shouldn't games reward us with food for killing enemies its sort of like the whole heaven/hell thing, although there is the prospect of heaven, a paradise after death, most people still do not want to die, or fear death, this probably stems from the fact that we subconsciously know that heaven doesn't exist of course this is my opinion other people would debate that there is a heaven or Paradise, but if so why don't they just let themselves die now?
Underserving of human life because they'd rather not play a game that centers around gratuitous violence and racism? Huh, there's something there that's throwing up red flags for me...
its quite a good game, I'm impressed, but it received way too much hype
other than that... there are games that focus on violence to a much more extensive/bitter way.
actually you have a good point famicom, why does almost every videogame involve killing of some kind? Just think about it, even platformers involve killing, although it is not usually like proper murder
because it's something you probably won't experience in real life
and umm does any body care about freaking SALES here?!
I mean those poor programmers need to survive.
and not all games feature killing, you probably never played a Racer, Simulation? there are tonnes of games that don't feature killing. at least not in a formal way
most modern racers involve trying to damage opponent's cars anyway i didn't say all games involve death. Some racing games didn't involve it (these are earlier ones) more modern racers do include lots of damage to vehicles and some are being criticised for lack of it. the thing is there is a fine line between realism and total carnage, most people say that death, injury or damage are just part of the realistic experience of the game, but if a game is already unrealistic why include death.
BTW Another group of games that don't feature death is rythem action or retro puzzles (i.e. Tetris)
also i am not complaining about the use of death in videogames, i mean it is absolutely exhillerating to kill that first enemy, or that final boss, but i don't know why it is such an important point of gaming. It must stem from early retro games such as Space invaders or centipede, which all involved guns and killing enemies. but why did they decide on death?
but in chess it is never referred to as killing, instead it is taking. it is most likely based on taking enemy soldiers prisoner rather than killing them
Riku calm down.
We've all thought about this but we didn't see the need to write an essay about it.
Most games revolve around killing things because developers are unoriginal and cant think of anything better.
Can you?
I tend to disagree on the issue of killing in video games. In a platformer or action game, there are probably enemies that are most likely, for all intents and purposes, killed. But this killing is purely fantasy. I don't bat on eyelash when Mario stomps a Goomba or Sora destroys a heartless, but when we look at GTA and the fact that this is a realistic human character senselessly murdering other realistic human characters, often times for no reason at all. I find this much more appalling than the simplistic, childish fantasy violence of other games.
Sure, you could argue that killing is killing, but if a life has to be taken, shouldn't there be, at the very least, some reason, some "noble" conflict in play that requires the hero to forget his values or the lack there of and take the role of killer? I find this a much more appealing alternative to walking down a busy street shooting every person that walks by just because I can.
Your typical final fantasy character kills more people/monsters/whatever than your typical first person character.
But its totally justified because their evil right?
"I don't bat on eyelash when Mario stomps a Goomba or Sora destroys a heartless, but when we look at GTA and the fact that this is a realistic human character senselessly murdering other realistic human characters, often times for no reason at all. I find this much more appalling than the simplistic, childish fantasy violence of other games."
It really all comes down to profit. An uber-realistic game about death and destruction is probably going to sell more copies than a fairly unrealistic game about building houses for the homeless. I think guys are still the majority audience in gaming, so companies kinda aim towards us to make more money.
Of course, you have to keep in mind that those games you mentioned are japanese. GTA is leaning toward
western gamers I think.
I'm saving up my money for quite some time now and I'll buy it as soon as it reaches our shores. The only thing that's keeping me from the video game world is the GTA series. San Andreas and Vice City are both excellent.
I understand the prospect of killing in games, and it is actually cool to do, but i'm asking why was it chosen?
Another strange thing is that Games such as Hitman or Grand Theft Auto have names which are completely centred around crime and the government accepted these names. But the game Bully had to be renamed "Canis Canum Edit" for english release? Thats really weird in my opinion!
no it was because they didn't want to promote bullying in schools. I think its probably because GTA and Hitamn are aimed at older age groups, but bully was aimed at younger age groups
OLike i said previously i don't think killing in games is bad, i don't think all killing games should be banned all i'm saying is that i don't know why killing was chosen
yes its fun but why do we find it fun
it must be some subconcious urge or something which isn't surprising since we are all animals and we must retain some of our instinct!
^ but in chess it is never referred to as killing, instead it is taking. it is most likely based on taking enemy soldiers prisoner rather than killing them
Bull shit! Chess is a war strategy game in war people die. The game is from thousands of years B.C. when people would have no problem with killing. As people became more civil the game changed with the times-- a civil man does not kill he captures.
most modern racers involve trying to damage opponent's cars
but you'll end up damaging your vehicle too
most action movies have killing too - games rely on action you can't have a game that is focused on drama. it will get boring and it won't have enough sales.
so you are saying that people might be influenced by the game?
well if then don't play, don;t even get out of your house you might get influenced but that Persil advert!
True, but would there be games like Condemned 2 if not for the popularity of GTA?
do you even know what Condemned2 is?
yes its fun but why do we find it fun
did you ever notice that while gaming your heart rate increases gradually?
thats because there are 3 hormones in effect Epinephrine, Norepinephrine and Dopamine. these increase our agility and reflexes
since man in his nature is aggressive he'll find killing a boost (shit and stuff)
