@Nightwing2000

I agree with you on this.

When is Postal 3 going to be out? lol

I agree. Games where you don't have to kill like GTA and Postal get all the news *****ing about them. But games where you have to kill go right under the media's radar.

@Nightwng2000

"It’s easy to lump a group together, point out negatives of individuals, and say those negatives are a part of the entire group"

Its also more fun and exciting that way! Remember people don't listen to details, they listen to claims. Loud, sensationalist, claims to grab your attention, which usually amount to nothing more than a sack of BS.

while i respect Desi and his message of free speech, i find his games to be crap.

also, Uwe Boll is a terrible movie-maker.

K-OSS A person whose name is pronounced Chaos should remember that Rome was not built in a day. Also that a country's actions are not always the actions of the people in it...after all the US has a Senate that doesn't work so much by the people anymore...they work for their agenda so don't lump Citizens in with Politicians you only muck up the Citizens.

I've never played his games but he's right and Nightwng2000 pointed something out that I agree with they do lump games together as Violence is bad...if they ever brought out a game where you were begged grabbed hold of various things given a reason to be all "erg...why am I killing these things they're so pathetic!" They'd still stay "see this game...Violent means bad...." -_-;

In striving to understand where these politicians are coming from, I wonder if (as I said previously) perhaps part of the problem is the moral system implemented in these games that cause such controversy; the problem being that you only get two choices: be extremely good or extremely evil with little to no middle ground meaning you can't truly explore the consequences of your actions. Also, let's face it, none of us can or should be evil in real life, so the opportunity to be evil in a game, a virtual world where the consequences don't matter as much, can be very irresistible even if the rational behind it is just shits and giggles. So perhaps the oblivious politicians see people being evil in a game and automatically draw the conclusion that the game is therefore evil and so is the person playing it, when in reality that person is acting out his dark fantasies due to influence from Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Weird Al because said person is only a little twisted at best instead of being a genuine malicious misanthrope.

Having never had experience with game like GTA or Postal though I have no way to be sure how much basis this idea has. Can anyone testify?

CK20XX,
I'm the follower of the idea that fantasy and reality are totally seperate.

The realist part of me is well grounded in reality. Cause and effect. Everything has a consequence (positive or negative). Some things you just can't take back. Etc. My personal "moral system" may not equate exactly to any other individual, but it does recognize those basic tenants and my actions must be adjusted accordingly, irregardless of what I feel or think.

The part of me that thinks in fantasy terms, however, believes there are absolutely no limits that can or should be set. So long as fantasy does not bleed into reality, anything goes. And why not? If I WANT consequences in a particular fantasy, fine. If I DON'T, that's fine too. It is, after all fantasy. Now, as some folks know, some people fantasize and want to do those things in reality. But, should a fantasy bleed through to reality, then that fantasy becomes reality and MUST follow the system of reality. While my "moral system" may have strict limitations, set by me or otherwise, my fantasy "moral system", technically, doesn't exist at all. I can be as moral or immoral as I choose.

That being said, I do have likes and dislikes for each genre for each medium. From a consumer standpoint, I'm very nitpicky. And I realize that my... uh... nitpickiness (?)... isn't the same as everyone else's. Thank goodness. I like my individuality, as I'm sure everyone else does.

Not everyone likes romance novels. Not everyone likes erotica. Not everyone likes porn.

Not everyone like Science Fiction. Not everyone like Fantasy. There are some who like both individually but not combined.

There are some who like being the hero. There are some who like being the Anti-hero. And then there are some who just want to run out and slaughter every virtual Human in sight, and probably do it all with just one hand... ahem. Yet, they make treat reality completely differently simply because they are well grounded in reality.

Heck, some people may be extremely nitpicky and you can't tell exactly WHY they will choose one fantasy over another. They may choose to play GTA but not The Godfather. It may have to do with reasons other than the character to be played... or not. Heck, the individual making such a choice may not even know why choose one over another.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@ Nightwng

"Heck, some people may be extremely nitpicky and you can’t tell exactly WHY they will choose one fantasy over another. They may choose to play GTA but not The Godfather. It may have to do with reasons other than the character to be played… or not. Heck, the individual making such a choice may not even know why choose one over another."

I've noticed that in myself as well. I wasn't even interested in the Godfather game (loved the movie and didn't want to see the story muddled by a video game) But I did pick up the Blackhand edition for the Wii, mainly because of the control interface.

@Yuki

We need to either allow ao games to be played, or we dispose of that rating and replace it with a rating that is viable. Thats how I see it.

At this point the inertia is such that discarding and replacing it is the only realistic option. Kind of like how the MPAA discarded the X rating and replaced it with NC-17 back in the early 90s.

Getting the AO rating to be allowed would require changing the minds of console makers, and retailers at the least; the general perception of it at the worst. Neither of those is particularly likely to happen.

I did play Postal 2 and while it was fun for a little bit, it kind of irked me that it is solely a game to try offend as many people as possible. I think the only redeeming quality of that game is that you truly can beat the game without killing anyone, it just seems impossible.

@Kentonio, and all the other

Don't forget computer gaming is still in its early age. When "grown-up" and older people (who didn't play video games) began to see games with a mature content (violence, sex, etc.), they were frightened, and still are. It's a normal evolutionary process. When they are all dead (metaphorically speaking), the next generation (us) will consider the whole video games phenomenon with less hysteria, and as it really is: a hobby sometimes childish, sometimes adult-oriented. And, to some extent, an art.

In fact, computer gaming is following the exact same path as all the other arts once followed. Cinema, comics, acting, all gained their maturity eventually, and respect from the public. Heck, even classical music, poetry and literature were once accused of being evil by the equivalent bigots of Jack Thompson.

LOL

Marlowe mate, you're thinking of pointlesswasteoftime.com, and while that article was amusing, there were better ones. *thinks of the one saying '5 Reasons Why Jack Thompson Is Right (And Wrong)'*