shooters..

[Mr_October]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
olec said:
the last try:

so all of you say that a game is a game, just an "escape from reality"..
the process of murderin someone (for what reason ever) is ok, because it is just a game--
ok, but killing someone is a much worse crime than for exaple raping a woman..
now PLEASE - read on an think first!!
why not have a game in which you have to grap young women a rape them, in the new half-life 2 engine
which is realistic as hell-- hear her scream, watch her cry - the full package!!
now you probably think, "no, it wouldnt be right to play such a game.."
BUT:
killing someone is way worse crime as far as the penalty goes..

KILLIG - OK
RAPING - NOT OK

why cant i rape women in VR?!?! this is a free country!! i DEMAND MY RIGHT TO RAPE IN VR!!!
its a great way to release my anger.. i dont harm anyone with it..

you see what i try to tell you?
please play on, if you like shooters go ahead,.. but please THINK!!!


P.S.: again, i wont take your games,.. please dont shoot me..


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

How did you go from FPS's not being ok to being ok to murder people in reality and talking about raping women in VR?

[Tayze]

Re: shooters..

Olec, I understand what your saying and to a degree I agree with you. But with that way of thinking, most games would be unacceptable. Like in Mario, i'm recreating that i'm jumping on turtles and kicking them or jumping and flattening little animals. If i were to do this in real life then many people would be outraged. But no one complains about Mario being bad for children. I just think that no one really takes it to the level that you do. For example its just like when u play a racing game and an opponent crashes into a wall and you win the race. In the game you are happy that you won the race and could care less that the other person crashed. Had it been real life you would be much more concerned about the driver that crashed and the victory would not matter as much. I just think that people realize that its just a game and can differentiate between reality and a game. I understand that you feel that many people trivialize death through these first person shooters, and while maybe we should or shouldnt, we play these games and see them as nothing more than fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented, whether it be historical or not.

[Tayze]

Re: shooters..

Olec, I understand what your saying and to a degree I agree with you. But with that way of thinking, most games would be unacceptable. Like in Mario, i'm recreating that i'm jumping on turtles and kicking them or jumping and flattening little animals. If i were to do this in real life then many people would be outraged. But no one complains about Mario being bad for children. I just think that no one really takes it to the level that you do. For example its just like when u play a racing game and an opponent crashes into a wall and you win the race. In the game you are happy that you won the race and could care less that the other person crashed. Had it been real life you would be much more concerned about the driver that crashed and the victory would not matter as much. I just think that people realize that its just a game and can differentiate between reality and a game. I understand that you feel that many people trivialize death through these first person shooters, and while maybe we should or shouldnt, we play these games and see them as nothing more than fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented, whether it be historical or not.

[Tayze]

Re: shooters..

Olec, I understand what your saying and to a degree I agree with you. But with that way of thinking, most games would be unacceptable. Like in Mario, i'm recreating that i'm jumping on turtles and kicking them or jumping and flattening little animals. If i were to do this in real life then many people would be outraged. But no one complains about Mario being bad for children. I just think that no one really takes it to the level that you do. For example its just like when u play a racing game and an opponent crashes into a wall and you win the race. In the game you are happy that you won the race and could care less that the other person crashed. Had it been real life you would be much more concerned about the driver that crashed and the victory would not matter as much. I just think that people realize that its just a game and can differentiate between reality and a game. I understand that you feel that many people trivialize death through these first person shooters, and while maybe we should or shouldnt, we play these games and see them as nothing more than fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented, whether it be historical or not.

[tigerx82]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
pk500 said:
Olec:

So ... you've never watched movies or TV with any violence? That includes cartoons, too.

So ... you've never seen a war movie or a movie/TV show in which a fist has been thrown or a weapon has been fired?

So ... you listen to no rap music or any music that advocates any violence of any kind?

If the answer to the above three questions is yes, then you're a moral, honorable guy. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then you're a Class A hypocrite.

Saying that a video game differs from a movie because you're participating in the violence is ridiculous. You're endorsing violence by watching a movie or listening to a violent song just as much as you are by playing a game. It all permeates your brain, and you can turn off a game just as easily as you can turn off your TV or stereo.

Take care,
PK

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

PK wins by knockout

[tigerx82]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
pk500 said:
Olec:

So ... you've never watched movies or TV with any violence? That includes cartoons, too.

So ... you've never seen a war movie or a movie/TV show in which a fist has been thrown or a weapon has been fired?

So ... you listen to no rap music or any music that advocates any violence of any kind?

If the answer to the above three questions is yes, then you're a moral, honorable guy. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then you're a Class A hypocrite.

Saying that a video game differs from a movie because you're participating in the violence is ridiculous. You're endorsing violence by watching a movie or listening to a violent song just as much as you are by playing a game. It all permeates your brain, and you can turn off a game just as easily as you can turn off your TV or stereo.

Take care,
PK

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

PK wins by knockout

[tigerx82]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
pk500 said:
Olec:

So ... you've never watched movies or TV with any violence? That includes cartoons, too.

So ... you've never seen a war movie or a movie/TV show in which a fist has been thrown or a weapon has been fired?

So ... you listen to no rap music or any music that advocates any violence of any kind?

If the answer to the above three questions is yes, then you're a moral, honorable guy. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then you're a Class A hypocrite.

Saying that a video game differs from a movie because you're participating in the violence is ridiculous. You're endorsing violence by watching a movie or listening to a violent song just as much as you are by playing a game. It all permeates your brain, and you can turn off a game just as easily as you can turn off your TV or stereo.

Take care,
PK

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

PK wins by knockout

[olec]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
tigerx82 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
pk500 said:
Olec:

So ... you've never watched movies or TV with any violence? That includes cartoons, too.

So ... you've never seen a war movie or a movie/TV show in which a fist has been thrown or a weapon has been fired?

So ... you listen to no rap music or any music that advocates any violence of any kind?

If the answer to the above three questions is yes, then you're a moral, honorable guy. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then you're a Class A hypocrite.

Saying that a video game differs from a movie because you're participating in the violence is ridiculous. You're endorsing violence by watching a movie or listening to a violent song just as much as you are by playing a game. It all permeates your brain, and you can turn off a game just as easily as you can turn off your TV or stereo.

Take care,
PK

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

PK wins by knockout

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


sorry guys.. but you seem to have serious problems with reading!
as i wrote above, and then even quoted myself i think its a matter of
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE..
can you two guys understand that?!?
listening to music, readin a novel, watchin a movies is PASSIV
playin games and virtually killin the people - you guessed it! ACTIVE!!!!

see you dont have to agree with that but please just read my post carefully so that you know
with what you disagree!

[olec]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
tigerx82 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
pk500 said:
Olec:

So ... you've never watched movies or TV with any violence? That includes cartoons, too.

So ... you've never seen a war movie or a movie/TV show in which a fist has been thrown or a weapon has been fired?

So ... you listen to no rap music or any music that advocates any violence of any kind?

If the answer to the above three questions is yes, then you're a moral, honorable guy. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then you're a Class A hypocrite.

Saying that a video game differs from a movie because you're participating in the violence is ridiculous. You're endorsing violence by watching a movie or listening to a violent song just as much as you are by playing a game. It all permeates your brain, and you can turn off a game just as easily as you can turn off your TV or stereo.

Take care,
PK

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

PK wins by knockout

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


sorry guys.. but you seem to have serious problems with reading!
as i wrote above, and then even quoted myself i think its a matter of
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE..
can you two guys understand that?!?
listening to music, readin a novel, watchin a movies is PASSIV
playin games and virtually killin the people - you guessed it! ACTIVE!!!!

see you dont have to agree with that but please just read my post carefully so that you know
with what you disagree!

[olec]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
tigerx82 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
pk500 said:
Olec:

So ... you've never watched movies or TV with any violence? That includes cartoons, too.

So ... you've never seen a war movie or a movie/TV show in which a fist has been thrown or a weapon has been fired?

So ... you listen to no rap music or any music that advocates any violence of any kind?

If the answer to the above three questions is yes, then you're a moral, honorable guy. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then you're a Class A hypocrite.

Saying that a video game differs from a movie because you're participating in the violence is ridiculous. You're endorsing violence by watching a movie or listening to a violent song just as much as you are by playing a game. It all permeates your brain, and you can turn off a game just as easily as you can turn off your TV or stereo.

Take care,
PK

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

PK wins by knockout

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


sorry guys.. but you seem to have serious problems with reading!
as i wrote above, and then even quoted myself i think its a matter of
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE..
can you two guys understand that?!?
listening to music, readin a novel, watchin a movies is PASSIV
playin games and virtually killin the people - you guessed it! ACTIVE!!!!

see you dont have to agree with that but please just read my post carefully so that you know
with what you disagree!

[olec]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Tayze said:
Olec, I understand what your saying and to a degree I agree with you. But with that way of thinking, most games would be unacceptable. Like in Mario, i'm recreating that i'm jumping on turtles and kicking them or jumping and flattening little animals. If i were to do this in real life then many people would be outraged. But no one complains about Mario being bad for children. I just think that no one really takes it to the level that you do. For example its just like when u play a racing game and an opponent crashes into a wall and you win the race. In the game you are happy that you won the race and could care less that the other person crashed. Had it been real life you would be much more concerned about the driver that crashed and the victory would not matter as much. I just think that people realize that its just a game and can differentiate between reality and a game. I understand that you feel that many people trivialize death through these first person shooters, and while maybe we should or shouldnt, we play these games and see them as nothing more than fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented, whether it be historical or not.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

hey! finally someone with real arguments!! thank you sir!
well, actually i love your racing game example, but there is still a differnce!
the goal in a racing game is to win the race, not to crush the driver next to you,
if it happens... well hey.. its a game!
but in FPS the goal is killing the people, in 95% of the cases you dont even have a choice,
not killing would be like not drivin in a racing game!
thats the difference..

if you want to compare with other types of games, id rather take Neverwinter Nights for example!
in this game you also have to kill people, although are is a chance to avoid it..
but again, i mostly have a problem with shooters that are based on historical events,
a fantasy game is fantasy - real history is real history...

see, i think its a matter of respect..
if you kill Merlin the Great Wizard in a game, ok.. you have my blessings-.
but if you kill a soldier, that could have been my grandfather - thats a problem..

someone said above that playing these games makes him respect the great american soldiers more,
well - if youd respect them, you wouldnt recreate their death over and over again as though it
was a game...

[olec]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Tayze said:
Olec, I understand what your saying and to a degree I agree with you. But with that way of thinking, most games would be unacceptable. Like in Mario, i'm recreating that i'm jumping on turtles and kicking them or jumping and flattening little animals. If i were to do this in real life then many people would be outraged. But no one complains about Mario being bad for children. I just think that no one really takes it to the level that you do. For example its just like when u play a racing game and an opponent crashes into a wall and you win the race. In the game you are happy that you won the race and could care less that the other person crashed. Had it been real life you would be much more concerned about the driver that crashed and the victory would not matter as much. I just think that people realize that its just a game and can differentiate between reality and a game. I understand that you feel that many people trivialize death through these first person shooters, and while maybe we should or shouldnt, we play these games and see them as nothing more than fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented, whether it be historical or not.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

hey! finally someone with real arguments!! thank you sir!
well, actually i love your racing game example, but there is still a differnce!
the goal in a racing game is to win the race, not to crush the driver next to you,
if it happens... well hey.. its a game!
but in FPS the goal is killing the people, in 95% of the cases you dont even have a choice,
not killing would be like not drivin in a racing game!
thats the difference..

if you want to compare with other types of games, id rather take Neverwinter Nights for example!
in this game you also have to kill people, although are is a chance to avoid it..
but again, i mostly have a problem with shooters that are based on historical events,
a fantasy game is fantasy - real history is real history...

see, i think its a matter of respect..
if you kill Merlin the Great Wizard in a game, ok.. you have my blessings-.
but if you kill a soldier, that could have been my grandfather - thats a problem..

someone said above that playing these games makes him respect the great american soldiers more,
well - if youd respect them, you wouldnt recreate their death over and over again as though it
was a game...

[olec]

Re: shooters..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Tayze said:
Olec, I understand what your saying and to a degree I agree with you. But with that way of thinking, most games would be unacceptable. Like in Mario, i'm recreating that i'm jumping on turtles and kicking them or jumping and flattening little animals. If i were to do this in real life then many people would be outraged. But no one complains about Mario being bad for children. I just think that no one really takes it to the level that you do. For example its just like when u play a racing game and an opponent crashes into a wall and you win the race. In the game you are happy that you won the race and could care less that the other person crashed. Had it been real life you would be much more concerned about the driver that crashed and the victory would not matter as much. I just think that people realize that its just a game and can differentiate between reality and a game. I understand that you feel that many people trivialize death through these first person shooters, and while maybe we should or shouldnt, we play these games and see them as nothing more than fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented, whether it be historical or not.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

hey! finally someone with real arguments!! thank you sir!
well, actually i love your racing game example, but there is still a differnce!
the goal in a racing game is to win the race, not to crush the driver next to you,
if it happens... well hey.. its a game!
but in FPS the goal is killing the people, in 95% of the cases you dont even have a choice,
not killing would be like not drivin in a racing game!
thats the difference..

if you want to compare with other types of games, id rather take Neverwinter Nights for example!
in this game you also have to kill people, although are is a chance to avoid it..
but again, i mostly have a problem with shooters that are based on historical events,
a fantasy game is fantasy - real history is real history...

see, i think its a matter of respect..
if you kill Merlin the Great Wizard in a game, ok.. you have my blessings-.
but if you kill a soldier, that could have been my grandfather - thats a problem..

someone said above that playing these games makes him respect the great american soldiers more,
well - if youd respect them, you wouldnt recreate their death over and over again as though it
was a game...

[Tayze]

Re: shooters..

But see, if you kill a soldier, that couldnt have been your grandfather. Like i said, these games are fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented. Sure they are based on history but they are still fiction, historical fiction if you will. Just like historical fiction novels or movies, these games are not real. They are fictional games in a historical setting. Also like i said, many people just dont put it on the level as you do. But thats your choice and i'm cool with that. Like my dad was in the army and fought in desert storm back in 92 or whatever and had he died, i dont think i would have a problem playing the first person shooter set in that time period. I dont see it as my dad fighting in the war. Or also my best friend, who is living in Germany right now, has a dad in Iraq right now. I dont think he has a problem with first person shooters either. But like i said, I have no problem with your way of thinking. If you feel that way, so be it. But i just dont think that most people see it that way and the makers of the games dont intend for them to be seen that way.

[Tayze]

Re: shooters..

But see, if you kill a soldier, that couldnt have been your grandfather. Like i said, these games are fiction, an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented. Sure they are based on history but they are still fiction, historical fiction if you will. Just like historical fiction novels or movies, these games are not real. They are fictional games in a historical setting. Also like i said, many people just dont put it on the level as you do. But thats your choice and i'm cool with that. Like my dad was in the army and fought in desert storm back in 92 or whatever and had he died, i dont think i would have a problem playing the first person shooter set in that time period. I dont see it as my dad fighting in the war. Or also my best friend, who is living in Germany right now, has a dad in Iraq right now. I dont think he has a problem with first person shooters either. But like i said, I have no problem with your way of thinking. If you feel that way, so be it. But i just dont think that most people see it that way and the makers of the games dont intend for them to be seen that way.