|
Post by Alrik on Mar 30, 2008 15:46:01 GMT
Well, I'm sure I could handle it, but I'm too sensitive for that.
Me, I'm sure that exposing myself to brutality day for day (as an example) would lowe my empathy. I would become "colder" in some way.
That's the greatest problem I see. Games which "teach" people to act brutally will - at least in my opinion - drastically lower the level of empathy and compassion.
To me, it's not a level of intellectual handling, but of emotional. Inside of me, my intuition tells me very clearly what I mentioned above: That the exposition to something leads into being used to it. At one point, it doesn't metter anymore whether it's just a game or real life, imo, and some people lose their ability to distinguish, I fear, and mix reality and fantasy.
Plus, there's always the percepts that everyrthing "soft" isn't good and should be avoided. I have read too often the point of view that "real men" become such by becoming "hard". And this can be achieved by exposing themselves to let me say brutality, for example.
Those often look down upon everything that's "soft" - including emotion. Emotion is from this point of view often regarded as something "waek", something unfavourable, because it makes you involved into things, lets you drag into something.
Real men don't cry, for example. The cliché goes that real men should endure the best friend being torn by a bomb without any emotional sign at all. Not being affected is a goal sought to achieve by many who seen to be "real men".
To me, that'ds the reason why there are so many war games out there: It's still a male dominated video game industry - by males for males. This doesn't mean that women don't play war games, they of course do, but this has rather to do with the underlying themes: Competition, confrontation, power, battle and death. The cliché goes that men are fierce looking warriors and women fierce looking family-keepers.
I expect that the vast majority of men playing Age of Conan will look down onto the Sims as something "childish", or "girlish", and "weak" and "soft" and so on. They wouldn't want to play it at all.
The only language they learn is that of confrontation and that of weapons. Diplomacy will be considered "weak" by them and they might grow into a severe lack of communication skills, the cliché goes.
In the world of men, Rambo is big. In the world of I suspect most women, too.
It has to do with power: Only a man who proves to be strong and powerful will be able to support a woman, the ageless cliché goes, and to become this way and to constantly prove it, men go into permanent competition(s).
Age of Conan is merely one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 30, 2008 20:47:38 GMT
It's more about genetics, Alrik. The successful male - the one who survived to breed - for many thousand of years (And perhaps millions) was the best hunter, the best warrior. It's not very nice, but guys get a kick out of because it's been our main focus for so much of our development.
I think it's a whole lot healthier to deal with that through computer games than by actual violence in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Mar 30, 2008 23:09:02 GMT
Well, I'm sure I could handle it, but I'm too sensitive for that. Me, I'm sure that exposing myself to brutality day for day (as an example) would lowe my empathy. I would become "colder" in some way. That's the greatest problem I see. Games which "teach" people to act brutally will - at least in my opinion - drastically lower the level of empathy and compassion. To me, it's not a level of intellectual handling, but of emotional. Inside of me, my intuition tells me very clearly what I mentioned above: That the exposition to something leads into being used to it. At one point, it doesn't metter anymore whether it's just a game or real life, imo, and some people lose their ability to distinguish, I fear, and mix reality and fantasy. And this is something that should be taught at a young age -- that there's a difference b/t reality and fantasy. I was taught this at a very young age, as my parents never ever believed in censoring me in any shape or form. Fact -- I've never been in even ONE fight in my entire real life, actually. Games, movies, music, art, literature, poetry -- all of that is should be seen as fantasy and entertainment. Even when any of those mediums are trying really hard to imitate a reality, it's not actually real -- there's still something missing. It might come close sometimes, but it still isn't the real deal. Usually, whether the makers of such a product can put in some sort of message or not, you could normally draw something yourself out of the work. And I'm sure that by not exposing yourself to anything "hard", one will think the world is a place that is a bed of beautiful roses and flowers. One would be naive to think so, since it ain't. I think the best solution is to be exposed to a good majority of everything. This way, you can think about things, understand things, discuss things -- and go from there. From there, the real conclusion can and should be drawn. I don't like this train of thought at all. Emotions can often enhance things and they are what you should follow in some cases, while other times we shouldn't get wrapped up in our emotions b/c we don't think logically. It's really a situational thing; like most things in life. "Real men don't cry" is a horrible way for a person to think. If you don't cry when something really horrible or extremely joyful happens in the real world (I have been there, crying in both instances), I do think (and this is from my experience, too) you'll uncontrollably explode in a way that'll likely be much worse at some later date in time. I think the game industry has far more males also in the game design and publishing areas than females, as well. But I'm sure there's a hell of a lot more females than their was, in the past -- playing, designing, and publishing games. I really liked The Sims, myself -- it was a definitely a very much needed departure from the usual amount of FPS's, RPG's, and other action orientated games. On this note, I'd like to talk about pure adventure gaming. Yes, I do wish there were more pure adventure games like there were in the old days -- in which you don't rely or any violence period. Sure, they're out there, these days -- but the good ones are often far and few between; such as Syberia series, TLJ series, Culpa Innata or Shadow of Destiny. It's worth noting this -- Fallout 2 can be finished without killing one (human) character, if you work on namely upgrading your Speechcraft and Diplomacy skills when you level up. Keep in mind, Rambo's a character. It's not really a full portrayal of John Rambo, since b/t Rambo 3 and Rambo 4, is a good approximate 20 years of Rambo refusing to fight and get involved, even though he's living in Thailand very close to an area where fighting always seems to be going on (in Burma) -- which is mentioned in even one of the Rambo 4 trailers. The only time we, as the movie viewer ever see Rambo, is when he's eventually put in a situation that makes him decide to actually fight. Rambo is an action film, so I doubt we'd ever see a Rambo character in a full-fledged love story; though, that might be an interesting concept... Though, I wouldn't title that film Rambo b/c given Rambo's history, his movies are action films -- you'd have to give it a different title, an extra sub-title, or something to try and let the viewer know "Rambo ain't kicking butt in this flick!" I'm sure in today's era, there are households where the woman holds down everything. And I'm sure there's households where both the man and woman equally hold things down, too. Age of Conan is a depiction of a very, very long gone time with many fantasy aspects also thrown in for good measure. Age of Conan is not representing today's 2008 setting in any shape or form. Sure, it might touch on some important issues and mirror them, but Conan isn't set in 2008 period. So, if there's anything to learn from Age of Conan, like any other violent movie, book, video game, TV show, etc etc -- it's something that you should not go out and imitate. It's out there to entertain -- and if you can draw some (positive) lessons, go right ahead; there's bound to be something there. Alrik has already learned, "I don't want to be like Conan; that's too violent for my taste." Same goes for sexual content, too. Just b/c sex is abundant in the The Witcher, doesn't mean that we all should go out in the real world and start trying to fornicate with anything that walks. Remember, Geralt is a fictitious character, who is sterile and immune to sexual diseases; most humans don't have that kind of gift and curse. Same goes for The Sims, too. Just b/c a one male Sim has one girlfriend he has a baby by and a mistress on the side, doesn't mean the player should go out and do the same thing in the real world, either. I'm sure somebody has learned from The Sims and The Witcher that every action has some sort of a consequence, whether it be a good, bad, or something of the shade of gray.
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Mar 31, 2008 15:47:32 GMT
I often have the feeling as if there were cultural differences - big enougfh to hinder true understanding of one another. But on the other hand, I'm quite alone with my "anti-violence" priciple in I think ALL forums. People just WANT to be violent, I guess. What I just don't understand ist this: Someone who is AGAINST violenced (in games in this case) is rather and with more energy attacked than someone who is defending it. I mean, the impression I get is the of the people defending violence - not just you, but in a very broad and general sense - seem to feel themselves like ... well, having to defend it. I always watch more energy put into defending violence within discissions than not. And people just don't buy nonviolent games, that's why this doesn't go vice versa [the other way roud] : There simple ARE no forums of people playing unviolent games in which they have to defend themselves by being non-violent. That's the thing I just don't understand. If violence was normal, then people just wouldn't bother. But instead, discussions like ours arise with every faction trying to outsmart the other - but here on the filds of "shall violence be in games or not". And what I clearly feel is the energy behind all of the positions. Just to illustrate this: Imagine non-violent gamers as sheep, and violent gamers as wolves. In how far would the energy behind sheep and wolves differ ? Would sheep rather be defending their sheep-being ? Just easting grass and making baaah ? Would the wolves feel accused of killing sheep (for food of course) and would they feel the urge to defend themselves "because it's in their nature" ? I'm not sure, but I suspect that it comes down to that. Some people are different than others. You can see it in forums: There are Trolls. And the far most favourite forums for trolls are those which are inhabited with sheep. Trolls just LOVE pokeing and driving sheep around ! (We call this behaviour here "mixing them up".) I think I remember a study that revealed that aggression leads to the producing of endorphines. Yes, I remember having read that, although I (as usual) don't remember where. Yes, after a short research I even found the source: www.wissenschaft.de/wissenschaft/news/287309.htmlAggressive behaviour of mice makes the brain produce dopamin. In my opinion, this is the very reason why people actually *like* behaving aggressively, like Hooligans, for example. Or Trolls. It's just fun to them. Same could go for violent games as well.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 31, 2008 16:42:54 GMT
I think the real argument is not over "Is violence wrong" Alrik. I think most of us would agree that real life violence definitely is, and would not try to defend it. What we are talking about though is violence in games, which is a whole other issue. Maybe for some people it is hard to tell the difference between real life violence and violence in films or games, but by far most of us know the difference. People who play violent games are always defending ourselves because we are always having to defend ourselves (And I include myself primarily as a fan of RTS games, not of excessive gore). No-one attacks non-violent game players, do they? I have never seen it argued that games with no violence are in any way inferior or lacking as games solely because they lack violence. One of the most popular game franchises is The Sims which is non-violent. A lack of violence certainly does not impede games like Guitar Hero or The Movies from being popular, either (And I adore The Movies, which is a game with no violence or conflict whatsoever unless you count sulking stars). There is a vast difference between 'Violent gamers' and 'people who play violent games' too. I can't even remember the last time I lifted a hand against anyone in real life, yet I am a brutal destroyer of all that stand before me in games. This is where I think your 'sheep vrs wolves' analogy fails the most. You are equating computer violence with real life violence far too strongly. People who play violent games simply have no interest in 'preying on the sheep' - after all, why should we? I - and I believe most players - play for the challenge, and challenge will not be found against someone who is one of your 'sheep'. Non-violent game players are also playing for the challenge, I am sure - it's just a different kind of challenge. I couldn't general a real life army. I believe far too strongly in the sanctity of life. The enemy casualties would kill my heart, let alone my own. I literally won't even hurt flies. If you squash them or swat them you are literally a more violent person than I, in real life. But give me an army of pixel-people and I will crush, demolish and destroy the enemy with absolute ruthlessness, then hunt down and destroy those that try to run away. I understand the difference, you see I suspect most gamers do.
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Apr 5, 2008 16:13:19 GMT
Well, in most games I hardly can kill beings or enemies ... Okay, some games just require that. Others just made me fill with disgust.
So, I wonder if I qualify as a "gamer" at all ? Most games are not for me, just because I don't want to play "violent games". If possible, I'd rather do without. But developers don't let me.
So, all in all, I'm a tiny minority, not a market at all. There's simply no money to gain from me.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 5, 2008 16:29:38 GMT
There are plenty of games that don't need violence, Alrik. Adventure games, a lot of Sim games - there's a lot more than you might think, and some of them are incredibly popular. I believe The Sims is the second highest PC seller of all time behind World Of Warcraft. Maybe you're not in such a tiny minority as you think
|
|
|
Post by hector on Apr 8, 2008 2:57:43 GMT
Well, actually The Sims is the highest PC seller of all time, and has sold about 7 times more than WoW, the sequel, too has sold more than WoW. So yeah, there isn't need of violence for games to be a success. However, researchers agree with Alrik.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 8, 2008 6:33:03 GMT
The study is flawed in that the reaction is ultimately to violence on screen, not real violence. It's interesting, nonetheless. Good find, Hec It also seems to have made no discrimination between male and female responses, which is definitely poor practise, IMO. I think there's little doubt such games would have an effect on children, though, I must admit. They are still forming their world view, after all. It's why classifying the games is important. The Sims outsold WoW? And by THAT much? I'm impressed!
|
|
|
Post by hector on Apr 8, 2008 7:39:15 GMT
The study is flawed in that the reaction is ultimately to violence on screen, not real violence. Actually, it's not. It may not be actual footage of someone beaten to death, but what the study showed was that test subjects reacted differently when exposed to same footage when they played violent videogames. That's desensitizing, which is what Alrik was talking about. I don't see why. WoW may be successful, but it's far from being the highest selling videogame ever. It's more the stupid amount of time some people have invested in it what makes it notable.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 8, 2008 9:15:51 GMT
The main reason The Sims outsold WoW by so much (I think) is the absurd amount of expansion packs put out for The Sims. Wow has one expansion, The Sims has like... ten-ish.
Edit: After reading Hecs article I started wondering what really IS worse in games (well, I thought the answer was obvious before, but it should be even more obvious now), violence or sex?
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 8, 2008 10:16:20 GMT
My mistake, Hec. I obviously wasn't clear. By showing footage of violence, the study went from letting the gamers experience pretend violence on a screen to letting them watch real violence on a screen. This is not at all the same thing as having them watch real and actual violence OFF the screen.
If the set up for the two types of violence is identical and the level roughly the same (Which must be assumed but is not clear in the article) then one could also be seen as a continuation of the other by simple association.
There is also the matter of control tests. It is known that violent games raise levels of aggression/adrenaline etc while people are playing them, but also that those effects are not unique to video games. For proper control, they need to get groups playing stuff like, say, competitive sports or other things that would have a similar effect to make sure the result is exclusive to video games and not a general desensitization caused by heightened adrenaline/survival instinct/aggression.
***
Ube - no-one does ANY kind of tests regarding sex in games or films, so the overall effects are currently unknown.
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Apr 9, 2008 16:32:23 GMT
I still don't understand why there has to be violence in games at all. Regarding Star Wars toya, I recently read that Hasbro doesn't want to re-release this vehicle - although fans demand it for *years* now, and Hasbro has quite often made what fans had demanded - because it "isn't aggressive enough". "What ?" I thought, "toya are measuredd against aggressiveness ? They actually believe that toys [for boys, since Star wars is rather boy-oriented, as everyone says] will sell ONLY when they are aggressivve (enough) ?" There are things I just can't understand.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 9, 2008 16:38:02 GMT
There doesn't have to be anything in a game, Alrik. Companies simply make what they think will sell. Or more usually they will try to copy things they know have sold well in the past.
If they ever try to create a proper market for female gamers you will doubtless see a whole lot less violence.
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Apr 13, 2008 15:44:52 GMT
The study is flawed in that the reaction is ultimately to violence on screen, not real violence. Actually, it's not. It may not be actual footage of someone beaten to death, but what the study showed was that test subjects reacted differently when exposed to same footage when they played violent videogames. That's desensitizing, which is what Alrik was talking about. I don't see why. WoW may be successful, but it's far from being the highest selling videogame ever. It's more the stupid amount of time some people have invested in it what makes it notable. Sims series may have sold more copies over time via the NPD report (at retail outlets, w/ all their expansions and all)... ...But regardless, this is worth noting here, that WoW + Expansion has made over 1.2 billion dollars alone just last year -- this is more than just the retail box game sales from the NPD report, since this indeed does include their monthly subscription fees.I will go find this link. ****** Found it.EDIT: Plus, we all know when WoW: Wrath of The Lich King (expansion #2) comes, that game will likely sell very well, too.
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Apr 27, 2008 16:15:07 GMT
Drakensang looks really good. I could play a bit with it on the German RPC yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 27, 2008 16:39:32 GMT
How far has it come in it's development, Alrik?
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Apr 27, 2008 19:21:05 GMT
Well, it looks like being well made, but mostly texts really need to be "localized". I often found "localize:" and after that the text that needed to be localized (I don't remember an example, though). In fact I couldn't play very far into the game due to lack of time - wanted to join a DSA (The Dark eye) P&P adventure session.
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Jun 30, 2008 3:11:43 GMT
What I'm looking forward to on the PC: --STALKER: Clear Sky --Mafia 2 --Fallout 3 --NWN2: Storm of Zehir (Expansion) --Crysis: Warhead --Left 4 Dead --Dead Island --Dragon Age --Diablo 3 --Doom 4
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Jun 30, 2008 9:36:52 GMT
Dragon Age Fallout 3 Spore The Witcher enchanted edition Blood Bowl Warhammer 40 000 Dawn of War 2
That's about it.
Übereil
|
|