bloomj31:and I still really didn't find any enjoyment in watching a woman be raped and killed on camera.
bloomj31:Although I think most snuff films are fake and it's hard to tell whether it's fake or not (many of the ones I've seen are quite convincing)
bloomj31: I've watched snuff films and they're pretty intense.
From this point forward, if Bloom appears in a thread I am reading, I will go to another thread. The man is disgusting. Sorry, Bloom, if you think I'm moralizing, because I am. You are over the top.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
chloe732: From this point forward, if Bloom appears in a thread I am reading, I will go to another thread. The man is disgusting. Sorry, Bloom, if you think I'm moralizing, because I am. You are over the top.
You're a very emotional person, it seems you didn't even read what I wrote. But that's fine, do as you please.
Laughing Man:Well just so you know liberty. I'm always the good guy in the game and I'm always nice to all my npc's. I only shoot at those who shoot at me first thus the NAP is honored
I lol'd. I don't believe it, but if anyone would be a NAP compliant gamer, it is probably you.
Blueline976: That's a very big assumption to make, in my opinion. "I suppose if libertarians (or people in general. The group doesn't matter) think smoking pot is ok, then they would probably be ok with shooting up heroin." See what I mean by big assumptions?
That's a very big assumption to make, in my opinion.
"I suppose if libertarians (or people in general. The group doesn't matter) think smoking pot is ok, then they would probably be ok with shooting up heroin." See what I mean by big assumptions?
Neither of those is simulating something that would conflict with non-aggression. My point is, if you will simulate killing, what is the difference when it is simulating kiddie porn? On principle, nothing. On aesthetics, maybe a lot. But again, if it is libertarian to simulate killing, then it's probably libertarian to simulate kiddie porn.
I would rather not simulate something I consider immoral but that's my personal choice.
Blueline976:I've been playing "violent" video games since I was 7 or 8 and I have never had violent tendencies. I also don't glorify them, but talking about how many kills one gets on Call of Duty is akin to talking about how many touchdowns one gets in Madden. Of course, it's very different in the real world but with video games its all for fun and competition.
So if there was a game for how many people you could rape or something, you're saying it's just entertainment for a score. I'll buy that. But will you accept people who play very extreme games under that premise?
liberty student: Laughing Man:Well just so you know liberty. I'm always the good guy in the game and I'm always nice to all my npc's. I only shoot at those who shoot at me first thus the NAP is honored I lol'd. I don't believe it, but if anyone would be a NAP compliant gamer, it is probably you.
Absolutely, I always try to solve discourse through non-violent discussion. However, when someone shoots a round at you in anger..well you just gotta defend yourself. Seriously though when playing Bioshock I wondered about the ethics of the main character. I mean here the main character is, running through the city, probably invading the property of others or perhaps homesteading property that is no longer owned and yet killing others who may actually be defending their property. Its just a big mess.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
liberty student:So I suspect, they got into bed with the major game manufacturers to build them. Hire a pro. It's what I would do.
You suspect? I am sorry, this is not enough. Either clear proof, or no such empty speculation.
It's one thing to say that violent videogames are immoral. It's another to go on and speculate that government is funding the videogame industry to tow the line. Unless you are absolutely certain, I think you do a disservice to your own arguments. Speculation and guesses are not enough.
Seeing that they already made America's Army, there doesn't seem to be much incentive for them to go one step further and get private companies to make games for them as propoganda. Is there any proof of Infinity Ward and the United States government working together? Any proof of monetary transactions between them?
I find these talks to be as credible as claims that government controls the news media. Government may be reaching its hands into a lot of areas, but despite all this conspiracy talk that Fox and CNN are crypto-government propoganda, nobody, and I mean nobody, has sat down to show clear proof of how US government controls or runs media. Other than speculation that they are Illuminati, and that Illuminati controls government and Illuminati controls media. Or Jews. Or maybe Jews and Illuminati are the same thing. I am not up to date on the latest conspiracy talk.
liberty student: Blueline976:I've been playing "violent" video games since I was 7 or 8 and I have never had violent tendencies. I also don't glorify them, but talking about how many kills one gets on Call of Duty is akin to talking about how many touchdowns one gets in Madden. Of course, it's very different in the real world but with video games its all for fun and competition. So if there was a game for how many people you could rape or something, you're saying it's just entertainment for a score. I'll buy that. But will you accept people who play very extreme games under that premise?
I think you can take a look at hentai games, and how popular they are in Japan. There's a lot of extreme content that comes underneath them, but I have no problems accepting the bizzare and offbeat tastes of Japanese people. My sense of morality revolves around seeing people as people, and not judging, dividing, or sorting them based on a certain set of categorical imperatives. All people are potential agents of promoting good and prosperity for other people, and thus they deserve to be treated with the respect that can be accorded to a creature capable of such a thing. To attach some quantified moral points to see how moral and immoral a person is, and treating them accordingly is only a tool of creating divisions and hostilities between people. Accept people for what they are and take the good with the bad.
haha this is me to a T. In fact so much I am generally embarrassed by it when discussing it with other gamers. I am never the evil guy, never. I find that there is a certain level of zeal behind my characters in the games I play. I always fabricate up some silly story of my own which justifies whatever I'm doing.
bloomj31:Are you a pure PC gamer?
Yup thats pretty much all there is for me. The only console I have conciderd is the Wii, the other two consoles cannot match the utility value or performance of my PC's. Then there is an issue of time. I don't have much time to play so I am extremely strict on the stuff I give myself time to. I havn't seen any titels lately on the console which has peaked my interest. My time is worth more to me then my money at this point. I'll spend $50 bucks on a game and if it doesn't justify itself in the first hour or so I'll never play it again without feeling a hint guilt. My books, my studies, and my work are just far too more important. Plus my Mises forum time has to fit in somewhere!
At any rate I did try to play dragon age, I got bored like 1/3 to halfway in. I was playing on normal difficulty and the damn game was next to impossible to get through in some scenarios. I suppose I should give it a second shot and change the difficulty to easy.
Prateek Sanjay:It's one thing to say that violent videogames are immoral. It's another to go on and speculate that government is funding the videogame industry to tow the line. Unless you are absolutely certain, I think you do a disservice to your own arguments. Speculation and guesses are not enough.
It is speculation but it's not necessarily bad speculation. Such a reality would not surprise me in the least bit. I don't think it's an incredible claim at all. And the mainstream media, well thats another issue. This is all back doors, special interest, money moving stuff that voters don't hear about. Special interest is what drives washington, and it's the stuff that gets funded to be placed on TV. So it's not the media thats on a propaganda campaign per se, it's various special interests behind it.
In the apparatus of conspiracy theory's I think those two would be ones far more likely as being a reality.
In response to the hand-wringing at the beginning of the thread about violent video games, please note that pornography acts as an economic substitute for rape and, likewise, violent video games (and movies) act as an economic substitute for violent crimes. I prefer that people with a tendency to rape watch a porno instead. I prefer that people with violent tendencies play a video game instead of killing someone. In fact, I think that the military will find that recruitment, on net, is much harder by virtue of the existence of military and other point-and-shoot video games, than the other way around. While the games will heighten the excitement to join of a few people who already want to join the military, far more fence-sitters will get their adrenaline fix and decide that the risk of doing the real thing is not worth the marginal increase in adrenaline rush intensity.
Clayton -
liberty student:My point is, if you will simulate killing, what is the difference when it is simulating kiddie porn?
Laughing Man: liberty student: Laughing Man:Well just so you know liberty. I'm always the good guy in the game and I'm always nice to all my npc's. I only shoot at those who shoot at me first thus the NAP is honored I lol'd. I don't believe it, but if anyone would be a NAP compliant gamer, it is probably you. Absolutely, I always try to solve discourse through non-violent discussion. However, when someone shoots a round at you in anger..well you just gotta defend yourself. Seriously though when playing Bioshock I wondered about the ethics of the main character. I mean here the main character is, running through the city, probably invading the property of others or perhaps homesteading property that is no longer owned and yet killing others who may actually be defending their property. Its just a big mess.
well you did buy the game and put yourself in harm's way. so if there's a war going on and I travel to it. Then somebody shoots at me, does that mean I can call back home, let others that stand by me know that there are people shooting at me and they are the aggressors, so thereby, the U.S. can send a massive army into Somalia now because as a CIA agent I was only walking around minding my own business.
filc:Bloom made a challenge that the military was NOT involved in the development of any of these games. I provided a link that said otherwise. The point had nothing to do with the military being involved with the production of ALL games. Sorry if it was confusing.
He didn't just say "any", his point was clearly designed to be speaking about the mainstream market (e.g. Halo, Gears of War, CoD, ect.). America's Army does nothing to weaken it.
Where is Bloom stating that
filc:the military was NOT involved in the development of any of these games.
bloomj31: I'm not trying to distance myself from my ethical argument. I'm saying that you're labeling me in order to make what I'm saying appear marginal and/or indicative of a psychological disorder. You're doing this to invalidate my point of view. The market may be a pattern or a whatever but it does illustrate its preferences by actively selecting certain products and actively deselecting others. That's why David Friedman's game doesn't sell and why MW2 and Fallout 3 sell huge; they reflect market preferences. Does marketing play a huge role in the market? I think so. But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games. The games are advertised as fun diversions and distractions. Not as some way of exercising patriotism and/or nationalism. Now, if you're going to tell me that the military is brainwashing people into playing violent games and that the market's preferences for said games is not authentic, why do you assume that any market preferences are authentic and not just a manifestation of brainwashing in some other way? In other words, why do you always give the market credit except when it comes to selecting violent games?
I'm not trying to distance myself from my ethical argument. I'm saying that you're labeling me in order to make what I'm saying appear marginal and/or indicative of a psychological disorder. You're doing this to invalidate my point of view.
The market may be a pattern or a whatever but it does illustrate its preferences by actively selecting certain products and actively deselecting others. That's why David Friedman's game doesn't sell and why MW2 and Fallout 3 sell huge; they reflect market preferences.
Does marketing play a huge role in the market? I think so. But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games. The games are advertised as fun diversions and distractions. Not as some way of exercising patriotism and/or nationalism.
Now, if you're going to tell me that the military is brainwashing people into playing violent games and that the market's preferences for said games is not authentic, why do you assume that any market preferences are authentic and not just a manifestation of brainwashing in some other way?
In other words, why do you always give the market credit except when it comes to selecting violent games?
If you are accusing me of a strawman, you have made an even graver one yourself.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Those targeting systems were copied from video games, the games were developed first.
Blowing up real people is like playing a video game, except you get wade through all the gore, and clean it up, and smell it, and watch 11 year old boys vow to kill you before they die, and take a daughters torso to the burn pile, and a wife's head to her shackled husband, then there are the burn victims.....
Yes, these games condition one to murder. It is called indoctrination. If you are use to death already, it is much easier to instill the kill or be killed mentality. They can be turned to positive uses, but that is up to the individual.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
QFT
I play the total war games the same way, someone always attacks me first, I go for trade agreements.
in response to laughing man
laminustacitus:Where is Bloom stating that filc:the military was NOT involved in the development of any of these games. ?:
bloomj31:But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games.
woops
Snowflake: liberty student:My point is, if you will simulate killing, what is the difference when it is simulating kiddie porn? I can't wait to bust this one out on my friends.
You'll get plenty of equivocation. Note, no one here as picked up the challenge either. And to be honest, I can't blame them. Video games can be fun. The problem is, we're in a video game market that almost exclusively simulated violence. There isn't a lot in the way of alternatives.
Is it any worse than a violent movie or violent book? I have my tolerance levels as well. Things of excess gore I find in distaste, same in games
wilderness:well you did buy the game and put yourself in harm's way. so if there's a war going on and I travel to it. Then somebody shoots at me, does that mean I can call back home, let others that stand by me know that there are people shooting at me and they are the aggressors, so thereby, the U.S. can send a massive army into Somalia now because as a CIA agent I was only walking around minding my own business.
Well that presumes that my natural rights are subject to the environment I am in. If I am in a bad neighborhood then I am somehow asking to be victimized. I don't believe that to be true. Plus the main character was brainwashed into killing the pilot after which I was trying to establish crusoe economics.
filc: Is it any worse than a violent movie or violent book? I have my tolerance levels as well. Things of excess gore I find in distaste, same in games
Today's most violence games are tame compared to movies. The violence and gore are too artificial. Ever played Dead Space? It's like kicking around clay models that are loaded with cranberry juice. Now take that and contrast it to the torture scenes in Inglorius Bastards. You'll squirm, find your happy place, and maybe faint at the end. All in all, I think a game's sadistic factor depends how many emotional appeals it can fit in (an expectant father pleading for his life).
My point is, if you will simulate killing, what is the difference when it is simulating kiddie porn?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I love games, the most complete form of art/entertainment. I dont care if the came is gory or colourful, what matter is to be good. Super Mario Galaxy was an orgasmic experience, Resident Evil 4 in the Wii is pure fun too.
Hey, if people want to check a great game with some hint of libertanrianism, Metroid Fusion, it's a game boy advance game, so anyone can download the rom.
I think part of the reason for the increase in combat oriented video games is the rise of consoles. Consoles are ill-suited to handling grand strategy games like Hearts of Iron, Civilization, Galactic Civilizations, SimCity or Dwarf Fortress, where the violence is, for the most part, abstract and remote, and have a leg up on PCs for fighting games in terms of much greater stability.
Laughing Man: wilderness:well you did buy the game and put yourself in harm's way. so if there's a war going on and I travel to it. Then somebody shoots at me, does that mean I can call back home, let others that stand by me know that there are people shooting at me and they are the aggressors, so thereby, the U.S. can send a massive army into Somalia now because as a CIA agent I was only walking around minding my own business. Well that presumes that my natural rights are subject to the environment I am in. If I am in a bad neighborhood then I am somehow asking to be victimized. I don't believe that to be true. Plus the main character was brainwashed into killing the pilot after which I was trying to establish crusoe economics.
why go to a war zone if only to look for an excuse to kill. obviously the video game will send in aggressors and you know this. the game isn't developed around nobody will shoot you unless you shoot them first. i mean it wouldn't be so-called fun. there is an enemy and a mission before the adventure begins. Are you the main character and were thereby brainwashed before you could establish crusoe economics? interesting plot.
Praetyre: I think part of the reason for the increase in combat oriented video games is the rise of consoles. Consoles are ill-suited to handling grand strategy games like Hearts of Iron, Civilization, Galactic Civilizations, SimCity or Dwarf Fortress, where the violence is, for the most part, abstract and remote, and have a leg up on PCs for fighting games in terms of much greater stability.
PCs used to be the home of a lot of FPS titles.
Anyway, violence in games and elsewhere isn't anything new. If anything, it has been the constant theme for god-knows how many thousand years of recorded history.
In the distant past, children might play cowboy and indians.
The older generation grew up watching violent movies and tv shows.
Now, we play video games.
The people who say that the media growing ever-violent don't have any sense of history. It has alway been the major theme of fiction.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Everyone is, of course, entitled to enjoying whatever "fun" they prefer. Ponder this though... You are deluding yourself if you think that you can cleanly extricate yourself from your own actions, no matter how fictional you may think they are. Your actions affect/define you as much as you affect/initiate them. You become/are what you do. The question is who/what do you want to be and why do you do what you do? You constantly make choices about who to hang out with, what to do, what to read, and how to "spend" your scarce time in this world. These choices, over time, define who you become. Ask yourself which aspect exactly of the blowing/destroying/killing action in the game makes them "fun".
I've never played video games, but as I understand them (and correct me if I'm wrong) basically (1) there are things/monsters/people moving in front of you, (2) you shoot/slash/zap them with various weapons (3) they evaporate/explode/die in front of you with varying degrees of gory detail in terms of blood and intestines which is in some way correlated to the amount of "fun" you're supposed to experience. Fundamentally, all video games are Pong, i.e. you reacting to an object on the screen that moves with varying degrees of complexity/predictability. I fail to understand how increased levels of high-def details and addition of realistic gore somehow makes them more enticing or "fun". But that's me.
Z.
z1235: Everyone is, of course, entitled to enjoying whatever "fun" they prefer. Ponder this though... You are deluding yourself if you think that you can cleanly extricate yourself from your own actions, no matter how fictional you may think they are. Your actions affect/define you as much as you affect/initiate them. You become/are what you do. The question is who/what do you want to be and why do you do what you do? You constantly make choices about who to hang out with, what to do, what to read, and how to "spend" your scarce time in this world. These choices, over time, define who you become. Ask yourself which aspect exactly of the blowing/destroying/killing action in the game makes them "fun". I've never played video games, but as I understand them (and correct me if I'm wrong) basically (1) there are things/monsters/people moving in front of you, (2) you shoot/slash/zap them with various weapons (3) they evaporate/explode/die in front of you with varying degrees of gory detail in terms of blood and intestines which is in some way correlated to the amount of "fun" you're supposed to experience. Fundamentally, all video games are Pong, i.e. you reacting to an object on the screen that moves with varying degrees of complexity/predictability. I fail to understand how increased levels of high-def details and addition of realistic gore somehow makes them more enticing or "fun". But that's me. Z.
Humm, You are wrong, but that's ok since you never played. Games like Legend of Zelda series or Super Mario Bros 3 lack any considerable violence, but are considered classic games. And you are too attatched to the importance of realistic graphics, when there are plenty of games with non-realistic graphics that benefit from a more cartoonesque visual.
Saan: Yes, these games condition one to murder. It is called indoctrination. If you are use to death already, it is much easier to instill the kill or be killed mentality. They can be turned to positive uses, but that is up to the individual.
No, they don't. It sounds like the typical line that "violent video games are turning kids violent", "Doom caused Columbine!", etc. It is not a valid claim. People *can* differentiate fact from reality to the extent that they realize they are playing a game. I believe video games are a method of exploring alternative value systems and acting upon those value systems. This in turn allows a person to think about the implications of those value systems in real life. I've acted in many different ways in games. If anyone is trying to indoctrinate people with video games, they should realize that video games are the single worst medium of propaganda there is. The only way to "condition" someone to murder is by telling them to actually commit murder and threats of violence if they disobey.
wilderness:why go to a war zone if only to look for an excuse to kill.
Perhaps my property is there.
wilderness: Are you the main character and were thereby brainwashed before you could establish crusoe economics? interesting plot.
Yes, the character is going back to what is theoretically his home. Though it is completely destroyed and lacking development. Much like Crusoe on the island.
z1235: I've never played video games, but as I understand them (and correct me if I'm wrong) basically (1) there are things/monsters/people moving in front of you, (2) you shoot/slash/zap them with various weapons (3) they evaporate/explode/die in front of you with varying degrees of gory detail in terms of blood and intestines which is in some way correlated to the amount of "fun" you're supposed to experience. Fundamentally, all video games are Pong, i.e. you reacting to an object on the screen that moves with varying degrees of complexity/predictability. I fail to understand how increased levels of high-def details and addition of realistic gore somehow makes them more enticing or "fun". But that's me. Z.
Fundamentally, games can be categorize to 3 types:
1. Spatial manipulations (Hit that damn thing)
2. Puzzle (Tetris)
3. Mathematics (Strategy)
For example, I am playing an massive multi-player game on the time scale of FOREVER where it is more or less about conquering other people's village on a massive scale. It is primary a game of mathematics, considering that I am dealing with lot of numbers.
LM,
too much personification injected into a game for me
good night, have fun
filc: laminustacitus:Where is Bloom stating that filc:the military was NOT involved in the development of any of these games. ?: bloomj31:But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games. woops
Is the qualifier "Any" there? Honestly, America's Army is not the typical first person shooter found on the market (which are the games we are speaking about here), and honestly I never heard of it before. To weaken his point you need to go after games like Halo, Gears of War, or CoD (the games Bloom was clearly alluding to here), which was my original point that you have yet to address.
Though a little-known game made by the military may preserve your world-view, it does nothing to make your point sound.
Seeing as you never played any videogames- is it no wonder that you'd fail to see how certain elements could make them more fun? That's a pretty big genre to miss out on- try one, it won't hurt, you could end up having the time of your life. Maybe try the Legend of Zelda series? You know there are puzzles in that game you have to solve to get to the next area? A lot of the fun is also exploring the landscape, enjoying the story elements...I mean there's a lot more to video games than just reacting to what's immediately on the screen.
laminustacitus:Though a little-known game made by the military may preserve your world-view, it does nothing to make your point sound.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0919/p01s04-usmi.html
In a recent informal survey of recruits at Fort Benning, Ga., which was conducted by the Army's video-game development team, about 60 percent of recruits said they've played "America's Army" more than five times a week. Four out of 100 said they'd joined the Army specifically because of the game. Nationwide, the game counts some 7.5 million registered users, making it one of the Top 5 online PC games.
In related news, the US government will begin two new video game projects, with working titles, "America's Government" where kids can try their hand at redistributing property, and "America's Apologists" where players can participate in the disinformation war against citizens who don't trust their government.
The games are slated for release in Q2 2011 and Q1 2012 respectively, and will feature bonus addons like a mobile game where you can report other citizens for violation of eco-policy, and a website where players can upload videos of police officers that do not show them using pain compliance on single mothers and small children.
"I never really thought about the military at all before I started playing this game," says Pfc. Doug Stanbro in a phone interview from Fort Jackson, S.C.
There is no such thing as violence in video games. Who is this "violence" being perpetrated upon? The pixels on the screen??
No more wrong with a "violent" video game than with a "violent" movie. Some of the best movies are "violent". Anti-war movies are by definition violent.
But is good to have eyes open for propaganda because it can be inserted into every media. But "violence" in games is not in itself propaganda already.
liberty student:"America's Apologists"
Horrible game title. It will never work.
auctionguy10:Seeing as you never played any videogames- is it no wonder that you'd fail to see how certain elements could make them more fun? That's a pretty big genre to miss out on- try one, it won't hurt, you could end up having the time of your life.
Sorry, I didn't express myself correctly. I've tried playing a few and, honestly, they all look the same to me. Thanks, but I'm already having the time of my life in real life.
Is Mass Effect any good? Is it oblivion/morrowind/fallout style rpg or different?
filc: Is Mass Effect any good? Is it oblivion/morrowind/fallout style rpg or different?
Yeah pretty much. It is not that good, but what're you gonna do? You still have to play it.
Divinity 2 might be good too. English version comes out around the time of Mass Effect 2.