$246 million lawsuit against makers of GTA3!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


His followers where nationalists, that's the point (and why i said "let him do"). Nationalism does nothing but create blind loyalty and stops people from thinking for themselves.

And Hitler was a nationalist of *his* germany - not modern day germany, or the germany that existed before him, but the one he was making.

Im not going to debate nationalism with you. You dont like nationalism dont buy civ.

That's not cheating, and who said anything about rush building settlers anyways? I let them slowly starve to death while I get a bunch of tax collectors going, and only build a settler when it's down to one.

That was my point. Build settlers is the proper approaching. Converting to tax collectors is cheating.
The AI wont do it. Its not what the designers intended. Its taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. Kinda like ICS.

Why would I do that? They're both fun games. Regardless of the things they have you do, they're games and no sane person would be influenced to believe or do something against their nature by playing them.

and wont be influenced by films, music, books, etc. Sorry, I believe culture matters. We arent just the products of our genes and our parents. Or our "natures" whatever that means. We are ALSO impacted by the cultural products we read, view and play. Too bad that can be used by some to justify censorship. Its absurd to ignore it on that account.

and lots of kids spend a lot more time with games than they do with films, books etc. And the games are INTERACTIVE and IMMERSIVE - arguably MORE powerful than books or films.

Sorry, "its just a game" is a nice line, but it doesnt cut it with me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty

So like I can go into the store and buy things, talk to the people, start a business, whatever? what "The sims" should have been but wasn't? Sound like a good game. So if i never follow the criminal missions, and in sandbox mode never engage in violent acts, this will be a good game - not a hollow one?

The game has its limits and understandably the focus is going to be on making the criminal activities fun. I dont think many players are going to want to open a business when they can do something much more exciting. The missions are the focus of the game. You can play civ without building an empire if you like, but its not much fun

well yeah, thats my point. To say that the criminal activities and the violence in the open ended game are optional is kinda meaningless if there isnt anything else to do. My impression is that most players either play the criminal missions, or they go around running over old ladies et al.

[Snotty]

Actually most people do both.

Im not saying the crim activities are optional.

[Snotty]

Well, they are optional in pretty much the same way as building settlers in civ.

[Snotty]

Thats actually an awful analogy, but you get my point.

[Snotty]

LotM, youve given me a lot to think about. Ive got a number of studys to read my way through, but I will be sure to pick this thread up again then.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
That was my point. Build settlers is the proper approaching. Converting to tax collectors is cheating.
The AI wont do it. Its not what the designers intended. Its taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. Kinda like ICS.

Guess you didn't catch my edit. How's that a cheat? Having a bunch of settlers (assuming you can afford it) is a much bigger advantage then having a starving city. And the AI doesn't disband cities, either.

and wont be influenced by films, music, books, etc. Sorry, I believe culture matters. We arent just the products of our genes and our parents. Or our "natures" whatever that means. We are ALSO impacted by the cultural products we read, view and play. Too bad that can be used by some to justify censorship. Its absurd to ignore it on that account.

and lots of kids spend a lot more time with games than they do with films, books etc. And the games are INTERACTIVE and IMMERSIVE - arguably MORE powerful than books or films.

Sorry, "its just a game" is a nice line, but it doesnt cut it with me.

I've been playing video game since I was 4 years old. I was brought up on Sim City, Civilization, Dungeons & Dragons, Duke Nuken 3D, Half-Life, ect... Yet I disagree with the 'lesson' that they are supposedly sending. (With a few exceptions, like D&D - I'm all for sorcery )

And I know all about kids not reading books - I didn't start untill I was about 15. One of the first books I read was a 'practical sciences' book, and I've turned out to be extremly sceptical of science. I watched alot of action movies too - I think I saw the terminator at the ripe age of 9 - but that didn't make me into a ultra-violent gun nut either. Hey, and I've turned out to despise all of that Hollywood garbage, too.

Do I possess some sort of super-human immunity to all this brain-washing culture? Or maybe people will just do what's in their nature.

Alright, but really, I'll agree that things can have an influence on people - but no more then anything else can. Seeing a waterfall can change the way a person looks at life, just as seeing a movie can. And ultimately, how they react to such things is determined by the person they are and how they interpret it, not what they're looking at. I guess you can say it's relative to personality.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld

I've been playing video game since I was 4 years old. I was brought up on Sim City, Civilization, Dungeons & Dragons, Duke Nuken 3D, Half-Life, ect... Yet I disagree with the 'lesson' that they are supposedly sending. (With a few exceptions, like D&D - I'm all for sorcery )

And I know all about kids not reading books - I didn't start untill I was about 15. One of the first books I read was a 'practical sciences' book, and I've turned out to be extremly sceptical of science. I watched alot of action movies too - I think I saw the terminator at the ripe age of 9 - but that didn't make me into a ultra-violent gun nut either. Hey, and I've turned out to despise all of that Hollywood garbage, too.

Do I possess some sort of super-human immunity to all this brain-washing culture? Or maybe people will just do what's in their nature.

Alright, but really, I'll agree that things can have an influence on people - but no more then anything else can. Seeing a waterfall can change the way a person looks at life, just as seeing a movie can. And ultimately, how they react to such things is determined by the person they are and how they interpret it, not what they're looking at. I guess you can say it's relative to personality.

i wont challenge your sharing your own life story. I will again point to my Grandpa - he ate beef almost every day of his life, and never suffered from heart disease - does that mean i should toss out the window the research showing a link between saturated fat and heart disease, or say well its everyones nature that causes heart disease, not what they eat. That would be just silly. What we are physically and mentally is a combination of things - we start with genes, and are influenced by different aspects of our environment from the womb to the tomb, as it were. you played civ and ended up dislike nationalism - good for you - I read Marx as a lad, and ended up liking nationalism and welfare state capitalism(though i still like a good class analysis now and then ) But I wont say my character hasnt been shaped by books, films and games. To the extent they have shaped me they are now part of me, and not something whose influence i can readily perceive.

This does not stop me from judging some cultural producets as ON THE WHOLE, and ON THE AVERAGE negative influences. And while i may oppose censorship (in large part because i dont trust the state to make subtle judgements, and more because i fear such a power being abused) I will not stop lobbying in the public space (such as this) against cultural products i think degrade the culture. In the course of time I will offend some people. Surely if games are only games, then posts are only post, right?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


i wont challenge your sharing your own life story. I will again point to my Grandpa - he ate beef almost every day of his life, and never suffered from heart disease - does that mean i should toss out the window the research showing a link between saturated fat and heart disease

But this is exactly my point, it isn't beef that causes heart disease, it's the saturated fat and how your body handles it that causes heart disease.

What I'm saying is that these things inlfuence people, they don't change them. They display something and people can analyse it for themselves and come away with something different acording to how they view the world. In this sense, a computer game is no different then anything else in the world.

As an example of what I mean, one person can look at a Waterfall and say "nature is great" while another person can watch a documentary and say the same thing, or yet another person can look at the waterfall and say "What a powerful force water is, it's a perfect source for electricity" It's how you interpret it. Our differences between Civilization is another perfect example. Obviously, civilization doesn't turn people into raging agrandizers anymore then it turns people into democratic capitalists. We both see the game and it's contents differently. As I said before, it's relative to personality.

[Mercator]

How about a hybrid RPG/FPS (or maybe more of a RPG/management game) called Frivolous Lawsuit.

You can, say, jump in front of cars, or buy cigarettes. Once your health drops below a critical level, you can sue those responsible.

Alternatively, you can get stuck in traffic jams, get yelled at at work, play violent games or watch violent movies. That will increase aggressiveness until finally you pop and go on a killing spree. You can then sue the individuals/companies responsible.

The ultimate goal is to rake in as much money as possible, as quickly as possible (and preferably not to die or get locked up either).

But of course, you will also lose lawsuits, so you'll need the money you do win to pay better lawyers etc.

[Q Classic]

fine and dandy - now can we agree to give the publishers of games about beating up old ladies the same degree of respect and social accceptance we give to pornographers?

if you want. i personally don't think too much about them, nor do i think too much about pornographers. i suppose if they didn't do it, somebody else would, and i still wouldn't give a damn.

so what is its basic premise?

rather than beating up old ladies, you're a hired thug in the middle of a bunch of gangs.
i never made the claim that the game's premise was good. i just pointed out that it's not about beating up old ladies.

Theres an excluded middle - there are possibilities other than legislating against something on the one hand, and simply saying each to his own tastes on the other. X rated films are legal in the US. They are (by a voluntary rating system) not supposed to be shown to minors. Anyone who allowed his children to possess them, much less show them to his childrens friends and acquaintances when they visit, would be ostracized. M rated games are legal, and are also not supposed to be played by children. Yet parents not only routinely allow their children to play such games, they allow them to be shown to friends and acquaintance who visit, without anyone even thinking of asking the parents of the visiting child for permission. Yet all evidence Im aware of indicates that viewing sex is far less damaging than exposure to simulated violence.
Dont make sense to me.

and involves active parenting, not more legislation.
kids younger than 17 aren't technically allowed to watch R movies without a guardian. nor are they supposed to watch nc-17 movies. but without active parenting, these kids can rent such movies, buy them, watch them on their own time when the parents aren't around. games are another form of entertainment which needs no heavy-handed legislation to moderate it.
you need to have parents involved. if they aren't involved, then there's nothing any legislation can do.
one only needs to look at urban blight to see this is true.

Yup, i should say not. Making games or mods about killing postal workers, old ladies etc - thats just KEWL - making a game about killing game designers, or mod designers for that matter, now THAT would be totally unkewl - to a game designer or mod designer at least.

so, rather than *****ing about them not doing it, why don't you go make one? the tools are easy to pick up.
besides, i've never seen a modder/designer use the term "kewl"--that seems to be the province of script kiddies and younglings.

Cheater. You get a bad city, rush build settlers. Starving them is just a cheat.

if it's allowed in the rules, without modification, it's not a cheat. we have different definitons. besides, it's not like there haven't been leaders who starved everyone by turning them into something profitable: like slave labor.

Fine - you think building temples and cathedrals is religious indoctrination, building markets and banks is evil capitalism, building courthouses is building up the evil of state society, then DONT BUY CIV. In return let me suggest that if you think doing whatever mayhem you do in GTA is bad stuff, dont buy GTA.
Im perfectly willing to accept that Civ2 is an endorsement of late capitalist democracy, and the steps to get there, as these other games are of mindless violence.

and i say again, don't piss on other people's methods of stress relief.

you wanna bet? A thousand victims of school yard bullies will tell you otherwise. They may know that SHOOTING someone will get them in deep trouble, and have enough impulse control not to do it, but there's plenty of violence. and even more nastiness and verbal violence, teasing and other non-violent bullying.
And then theres the absolutely horrific number of teenage suicides - violence against the self.
Again - the impact of violent cultural products is NOT just the number of kids who commit violent acts - its the numbing to violence, and the harm to the spirit involved in viewing and (yes) vicariously participating in violent acts.

how much you want to bet that school bullies will have disengagged parents? what about those kids that commit suicide--you think most of them feel engaged and involved in their parents' lives?
you think violent cultural products have more influence than a parent who doesn't give a ****ing damn about their kid?
you have an active parent, you get rid of a lot of violent influences: they'll put their foot down.

So like I can go into the store and buy things, talk to the people, start a business, whatever? what "The sims" should have been but wasn't? Sound like a good game. So if i never follow the criminal missions, and in sandbox mode never engage in violent acts, this will be a good game - not a hollow one?

the engine isn't quite that advanced. this game was designed for action, not for simulating life.

look, what it boils down to is that it's not the games responsible for these tragic incidents. if you don't have a goddamn parent there, every single ****ing day of the kid's life, to provide warmth, love, guidence, and care, you're going to have seriously ****ed up kids. the games, the movies, the music, the books--it's all minor compared to the parental contribution.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
look, what it boils down to is that it's not the games responsible for these tragic incidents. if you don't have a goddamn parent there, every single ****ing day of the kid's life, to provide warmth, love, guidence, and care, you're going to have seriously ****ed up kids. the games, the movies, the music, the books--it's all minor compared to the parental contribution.

This lawsuit is nothing but a kneejerk reaction from detached parents, shocked by the fact that they didn't see this coming. So they desparately try to cover their own asses and show that they really DO care for and love their kids.

[Q Classic]

exactly. and it's silly to place the onus of this violent outburst on the games.

[Ben Kenobi]

those kids that commit suicide--you think most of them feel engaged and involved in their parents' lives?

Seems rather excessive. Bullying plays a role in some of the suicides, regardless of the parents and their involvement.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In related news, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, and Jacques Chirac are suing Sid Meiers, Brian Reynolds, Firaxis, Microprose and Activision (well the defendants' side IS rather complicated - hopefully this will be sorted out) for developing a game encouraging global domination by an advanced, late capitalist, democracy that posseses the Statue of Liberty and the Hoover Dam.

Excellent!