Split: Violence in games

[Usagi]

I was kinda...avoiding...the killing little bunny children thing this time around. For two reasons:
1) [Yada yada game strategy.]
2) This keeps Usagi from going into a fit of rage and deleting all his posts again.

Thank you for your thoughtfulness in trying to spare my feelings, Gray. But now the voices are starting again and I'm pretty sure those are pentagrams forming on my paws, err, hands I mean.

All facetiousness aside, the idea that L2 should include infanticide, torture, rape or graphic sex is completely contrary to the spirit of the game. In addition, it would attract all the wrong sort of attention (and fans) to the game when released.

I have no concern that David or his team have any intention of incorporating these into their game. However, the discussion of them or request that they be included is out of place on this forum.

There are rape and torture sites and forums if you're into that. And you can always find pedophilia and child abuse if you really want it. Personally, I find it all offensive, even revolting.

I would never suggest censoring creative content of any kind, since I'm free to avoid it if I want. I can tolerate Colicedus' occasional foray into intentionally offensive topic areas, or even expressions of what I consider self-demeaning proclivities. But I do believe that self-censorship is a good thing.

If by some mischance David decides to include the above topics in L2, I won't be interested in playing it. Right now I read all posts, but if this continues to be a topic of interest in certain threads I'll avoid them. And if this becomes a a focus of the forum, I probably will stop visiting.

But I won't change all my posts to a single again.

Probably.

PS:

Goddammit! My brain is MELTING! Well, one thing's for sure, they can only have one weapon at a time.

I am so tempted to make a GIF of wolves with multiple weapons hacking T to bits, but I don't want BWS' brain to evaporate.

PPS: Yes, I am aware of the irony in this post.

[Colicedus]

I can tolerate Colicedus' occasional foray into intentionally offensive topic areas, or even expressions of what I consider self-demeaning proclivities.

No means of offense here, Just was interested to know.
and Intentionally? I don't make an attempt to make the world Gasp at a Horrific Monstrosity that should be killed because it would be the humane thing to do, People can Give offense, or they can take offense...
I don't Go out of my way to dish it out, how ever, people are free to be hurt if they choose to by something.

How ever, you do nail a good point Usagi, It may attract the wrong people.

How ever, the first Lugaru had violence at the exstent of Smashing a life forms teeth out with a staff, and stabbing the hell out of them with a sword or a dagger, and a little more violence I could go on about. at times (out of peoples choice), stabbing a dead body repetitively could be classed as worst than torture, as it is defacing and disrespecting the dead. Where do Usagi draw the line?

[Zantalos]

Dude, stabbing dead bodies, is a necessity. How many fps games do you know where you are allowed to shoot dead bodies after you kill them, pretty much all of them. Knocking teeth out, that's just awesome.

Now, how many games do you know, regardless of genre, where you are pinning women down, ripping ther- there is no discussion here, this is all bad.

And even in GTA 4 they took out all the children because the focus group testers kept killing them. Now what does that tell you about the likely hood of David putting in missions where you kill children for points? It is beyond grand theft auto.

[GaGrin]

I could swear that I've said this before; what exactly is the deal with sex in games? Why is it considered acceptable to put horrific amounts of violence into games and yet sex, a more natural and much less offensive act, isn't?

I just don't get it.

Now sure, rape I understand. Thats one of the worse things humans are capable of doing to each other and should be approached with extreme caution.

Oh - and while we're on the subject - why is killing children worse than killing adults? Because the adults can fight back I assume. Except of course that often they can't.

Meh. Ethics need to be consistent imo and these just aren't

[Zantalos]

I am American and sex is always more "offensive" then violence. South Park made fun of it in that episode where the kids are throwing ninja stars around and one of them gets hit in the eye, but the only thing the parents are mad about is that Cartman was seen naked in public. That's basically how it is. In fact, my parents totally would not care about violence or gore in my games and movies but throw in some sex... and you better turn that off, right now, because it is not appropriate for kids.



And I'm guessing in Europe it's the exact opposite. The parents act completely different.

[Viking Zippy]

I could swear that I've said this before; what exactly is the deal with sex in games? Why is it considered acceptable to put horrific amounts of violence into games and yet sex, a more natural and much less offensive act, isn't?

I just don't get it.

Because the MPAA and ESRB said so

Oh - and while we're on the subject - why is killing children worse than killing adults? Because the adults can fight back I assume. Except of course that often they can't.

I believe we've been over this, but I don't remember the outcome — do a search for it maybe

[Usagi]

at times (out of peoples choice), stabbing a dead body repetitively could be classed as worst than torture, as it is defacing and disrespecting the dead. Where do Usagi draw the line?

Well, you have identified the central irony of my post, and I am aware of it as well, as I said. I'm not really interested in starting another extended philosophy discussion here; I don't think anyone else is really interested, either.

But I do see a difference between fantasy violence (even though it often serves to provide the guilty pleasure of expressing repressed anti-social feelings in a safe, controlled environment) and fantasy rape, torture and infanticide.

Fantasy violence can be dictated, even required by the gameplay. The player may enjoy it, even revel in it, but the designer doesn't intend for it to be the sole source of enjoyment for the player. (If they do, I don't play those games.)

The violence is justified (however weakly) by something in the plot line; usually revenge for an unforgivable act or something similar, or self-preservation against an implacable foe.

Using this weak (sometimes very weak) justification, we can assuage our guilt (if any) at enjoying the violence by rationalizing that it's required by the game, or an understandable reaction to an unbearable situation, or it's self-defense against an enemy beyond reason or entreaty.

But rape and torture are sadistic actions that can only satisfy a sick desire, one that should not be nurtured or even assuaged in a safe, controlled environment. They are never required, nor justified, by any situation, in fantasy or real life.

Lugaru is a pretty typical revenge fantasy, similar to many games, novels and films. Every character in the game is either a friend or neutral (and the game doesn't even allow you to attack them, unlike Halo for instance) or will kill you at the first opportunity.

You're forced to defend yourself, but you don't even need to kill them; you can succeed even if you only render them unconscious. Even though you have little control over this, I think it's telling that it's in the game, when it has no real value and contributes nothing to success.

But no character in the game, not even the wolves, intentionally tortures you, nor rapes you. And killing wolf pups capable of and intent on killing you is very different from massacring defenseless babies.

As for corpse abuse, again we're talking fantasy here, and no corpse can feel pain even in real life. There is no society to be outraged, no relatives to be dismayed or devastated, no afterlife to endanger nor god to offend.

The admittedly creepy visceral pleasure of punching and hacking an inanimate body on screen is mostly harmless (unless you intentionally kill them just to enjoy that pleasure); certainly no more harmful than enjoying the revenge killings.

Now, aren't you glad I didn't go into an extended discussion.

I don't Go out of my way to dish it out, how ever, people are free to be hurt if they choose to by something.

We all (meaning all on this forum) have said outrageous and offensive things for effect. Maybe the emphasis should be on outrageous, and not offensive. But don't try to tell me you've never done that here, 'cuz I won't believe you.

In fact, I can't, 'cuz that would mean you meant what you said, and then I would be offended (or outraged, or scared, or something; maybe satirized, or sarcasterized). Or perhaps just saddened.

[Ultimatum479]

...what exactly is the deal with sex in games?

...why is killing children worse than killing adults?

Meh. Ethics need to be consistent imo and these just aren't

Consistency is a function of logic, and ethics isn't logical (except maybe some consequentalist ideas such as ethical egoism). Your expectations are too high for human society.

[Silb]

(Ethics = branch of philosophy that studies morals.
Morals = what people actually do.
You mean morals.)

[Ultimatum479]

Meh. Ethics are hardly logical either.

[Grayswandir]

Uhm...while I would rather talk about multiplayer gametypes, specifically the one's I posted last page....
Personally...
It amuses me to see what you can do with enemies in violent video games. For example, I spent hours repeatedly ramming a dead wolf into the wall of the unofficial Lugaru expansion. Why? Because one time I got one of the wolf's heads stuck in between the tiny little gap that was there because of the way the scenery was made. He hung like a chandelier. It was hilarious.
...
Why is it that 10.3.9 can't take screenshots without messing them up horrible?

But no character in the game, not even the wolves, intentionally tortures you, nor rapes you. And killing wolf pups capable of and intent on killing you is very different from massacring defenseless babies.

I'm suprised you didn't cringe at my "Save the Children" gametype idea where one team eats the rabbits and the other tries to save them.

[Ultimatum479]

I'm suprised he's not crying about the way Turner's village was massacred and his wife raped in the first place.

[ChazFox]

Does anyone feel another split coming up? I sure do

[Usagi]

Because one time I got one of the wolf's heads stuck in between the tiny little gap that was there because of the way the scenery was made.

Did your wolf look like this? It's too bad you could only get one of his heads stuck.

I'm suprised you didn't cringe at my "Save the Children" gametype idea where one team eats the rabbits and the other tries to save them.

Just because I don't comment on every flatulent fanboy idea someone emits on the forum doesn't mean I don't think they reek with the mephitic smell of feculence.

I'm suprised he's not crying about the way Turner's village was massacred and his wife raped in the first place.

I'm surprised someone who drones on and on about the nuance of his foolish posts and exactly what they mean and how, "Meh. It's obviously too difficult for you lesser mortals to grasp my subtle reasoning," can't grasp the clear message of my post.

I've read your so-called philosophy, and just because I didn't challenge you on it doesn't mean I didn't think it was a steaming pile of poser prevarications fit only for coprophages.

As far as I'm concerned your title should be Flatus Maximus, the Gas Giant.

[Grayswandir]

I'm suprised you didn't cringe at my "Save the Children" gametype idea where one team eats the rabbits and the other tries to save them.

Just because I don't comment on every flatulent fanboy idea someone emits on the forum doesn't mean I don't think they reek with the mephitic smell of feculence.

But...but...its a natural order of things...wolves eat rabbits...rabbits defend their young viciously with knives, sticks and swords....
<_<
>_>