z1235: 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. Z.
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.
Z.
Which ones have you tried playing? You might've played all the same genre- there are so many games out there you cannot have played a few and then say you know what all games are like. I never understood the condescending attitude of "I have fun in REAL life buddy"- lol you're still in real life when you play games, would you never watch a movie or read a good story because you're already having the time of your life? Im not even sure what genre to put a game like this for example http://www.gametrailers.com/video/remember-trailer-flower/45646
I take a lot of games as interactive art- instead of just being the receiver of the stimulus(like watching a movie or tv show), you can to an extent control what is going on. Games like Oblivion or Zelda have beautiful fantasy landscapes that you can go out and explore- the work that's put into this stuff is pretty heavy- i mean to each his own but I think its a bit of a shame when someone kinda throws out giving some games a chance. Missing out on an amazing experience that's had a lot of time put into it- you don't have to play a first person shooter where the only goal is to kill the opposing team and get to the end of the path.(I can't even categorize all first person shooters like that)
ITT: A bunch of radical libertarians who don't play video games making horrible generalizations and speaking out of ignorance about an entertainment platform they don't even use or participate in.
I'm sorry, but it would be like me talking about how awful opera is even though I'VE NEVER BEEN TO THE OPERA.
This thread reminds me of the incredible wave of nonsense that erupted after Columbine where everyone blamed TV, Marilyn Manson, video games and God knows what else for causing the shootings when in reality it was just a couple of crazy teenagers who made some really bad decisions.
Everyone ignored what I said about snuff films too. I've watched them, they're still very intense even after years of "desensitization" from violent media. If someone feels the same indifference about blowing up a real human being with a tank as they do when blowing up a bunch of pixels with another bunch of pixels on Xbox Live then maybe that should tell us more about human nature/human psychology than it tells us about the effects of an entertainment platform.
ADD-ON: Look, I know you guys have good hearts and sound minds and you care a lot about things like morality and justice and I admire you guys for that. But I do think that if you just sit down and play a couple of these games that you'll find them to be very entertaining and not as awful as you thought they were going to be. If you spend a good two or three weeks playing the titles you're disparaging and you still feel the same way about them as you do now, then at least you have the experience to back up your view. But I'm still willing to bet you'll find a game you really enjoy.
bloomj31: . But I'm still willing to bet you'll find a game you really enjoy.
. But I'm still willing to bet you'll find a game you really enjoy.
Exactly. There's just so many out there its just impossible not to find one that would suit your tastes. This is probably going down the wrong road by mentioning it- but I kinda feel as if a lot of people on this forum are completely out of touch with their emotions. Games have come a long way and can be a very emotional experience- if you're not in touch with them its no wonder you can't find anything interesting about them.
filc: LM, Is Mass Effect any good? Is it oblivion/morrowind/fallout style rpg or different?
LM,
Is Mass Effect any good? Is it oblivion/morrowind/fallout style rpg or different?
It's very good. It is a third person RPG. Mass Effect 1 is not as 'open' as Fallout but it seems to be more open in the second one which is coming out in a week. Good plot though and +30 hours of game time so it is pretty long. You control how your character reacts and it affects the game. I'd certainly recommend it if you like solid RPG's or sci fi.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
auctionguy10: Exactly. There's just so many out there its just impossible not to find one that would suit your tastes. This is probably going down the wrong road by mentioning it- but I kinda feel as if a lot of people on this forum are completely out of touch with their emotions. Games have come a long way and can be a very emotional experience- if you're not in touch with them its no wonder you can't find anything interesting about them.
This is vague apologist nonsense laced with ad hominem.
Capital Pumper: auctionguy10: Exactly. There's just so many out there its just impossible not to find one that would suit your tastes. This is probably going down the wrong road by mentioning it- but I kinda feel as if a lot of people on this forum are completely out of touch with their emotions. Games have come a long way and can be a very emotional experience- if you're not in touch with them its no wonder you can't find anything interesting about them. This is vague apologist nonsense laced with ad hominem.
well I mentioned that's how I felt- its an opinion from the vibes that come off. I'm not trying to logically explain something that's not logical. And what am I being an apologist for?
Games series like Metal Gear(especially Metal gear Solid 4) or Zelda, or Kingdom Hearts are meant to be a rollercoaster ride of emotions- if one doesn' t see games that way and only sees it as a logical activity where you press buttons on reaction to what's on screen then how can they enjoy it?
auctionguy10: well I mentioned that's how I felt- its an opinion from the vibes that come off.
well I mentioned that's how I felt- its an opinion from the vibes that come off.
Then you should try thinking instead of hiding behind your "vibes".
auctionguy10: I'm not trying to logically explain something that's not logical. .
I'm not trying to logically explain something that's not logical. .
What isn't logical?
auctionguy10: And what am I being an apologist for?
And what am I being an apologist for?
You're doing the exact same thing the "video games are lolart" crowd. They wave the incense in front of gaming, and accuse dissenters of being out of touch (translates into old people).
There are plenty of out of touch people here, and by out of touch, I mean since the 80's. Generalizing all games as violent first person shooters is quite ridiculous, specially when gamers are constantly threaten by statist censorship and regulation.
What's next? Tetris being soviet propaganda?
Vitor:There are plenty of out of touch people here, and by out of touch, I mean since the 80's.
Name names.
Vitor:Generalizing all games as violent first person shooters is quite ridiculous, specially when gamers are constantly threaten by statist censorship and regulation.
Source?
Capital Pumper: auctionguy10: well I mentioned that's how I felt- its an opinion from the vibes that come off. Then you should try thinking instead of hiding behind your "vibes".
I'm not hiding behind them- I'm directly telling you its a point that is coming from how I feel. Vibes aren't a bad thing you know.
Capital Pumper: auctionguy10: I'm not trying to logically explain something that's not logical. . What isn't logical?
The way I felt about some people being out of touch with their emotions. Its an emotional conclusion- not a logical one.
Capital Pumper: auctionguy10: And what am I being an apologist for? You're doing the exact same thing the "video games are lolart" crowd. They wave the incense in front of gaming, and accuse dissenters of being out of touch (translates into old people).
Well it is art. How can you possibly think otherwise? There's new landscapes, creatures, and stories that are created for someone's enjoyment, with themes, messages, and meaning that the creators are trying to convey while they try to make the interactivity with the environment as enjoyable as possible.
Being a dissenter to gaming is just like being a dissenter to any form of art. Its fine if you wanna do that. But I didn't say that dissenters are "out of touch" with the times or anything- I said they're out of touch with their emotions. That doesn't mean you're a bad person- but it makes it pretty hard to enjoy many games that are out there with that kind of filter.
What I'm saying is more coming from z1235 and his statement that hes tried a few games and that they're all the same to him. I don't see how that makes any sense at all considering how many different games are out there.
auctionguy10:but I kinda feel as if a lot of people on this forum are completely out of touch with their emotions.
Yes, people who do not want to simulate violence, and do not rationalize and equivocate doing non-libertarian things in VR are the ones out of touch with their emotions.
auctionguy10:Games have come a long way and can be a very emotional experience- if you're not going to rationalize them its no wonder you find them contrary to libertarian values.
Fixed that for you.
liberty student: auctionguy10:but I kinda feel as if a lot of people on this forum are completely out of touch with their emotions. Yes, people who do not want to simulate violence, and do not rationalize and equivocate doing non-libertarian things in VR are the ones out of touch with their emotions.
Not all games are about simulating violence against another person. Adventuring around in mountains in Legend of Zelda and fighting monsters who attack you, while you try to figure out the puzzle to get inside the cave in the mountain(possibly by doing a townsperson a favor)- I don't see what's so non-libertarian about that. You're categorizing all games into one genre, don't you think so? I think its fine if you find it abhorrent to play a game where you have to kill another human being and see their blood and guts- but that's definitely not what all games are like.
liberty student: auctionguy10:Games have come a long way and can be a very emotional experience- if you're not going to rationalize them its no wonder you find them contrary to libertarian values. Fixed that for you.
You really think all games are contrary to libertarian values? That's speaking from ignorance. At least just say "I find games like modern warfare 2 and others like it contrary to libertarian values".
auctionguy10:Not all games are about simulating violence against another person.
Quote where I said they were? Quote it now.
auctionguy10:You're categorizing all games into one genre, don't you think so?
Where? Source it now.
auctionguy10:You really think all games are contrary to libertarian values?
Strawman (see above)
auctionguy10:That's speaking from ignorance. At least just say "I find games like modern warfare 2 and others like it contrary to libertarian values".
I think some of you guys may be over-exaggerating how much "simulation" is actually going on. Yes, they graphics are made to look real, but they don't - and that is the closest thing you have to realism, a true simulation tries to have as much realism as possible. The games that are popular today are not simulations, they are not made to be realistic, I would say they are not even believed to be realistic but that might be giving some people too much credit. Ultimately I think it would depend on the individual and what that person is getting or trying to get out of the game. Are they trying to imagine themselves in a real war, killing real people? or maybe they are just enjoying a simple game of 'who has the fastest reaction time'? or maybe they are just enjoying a fictional story that has been made more intriguing because the user has some level of control over it as it plays out?
One thing we should also keep in mind, is that if video games are satisfying some level of "simulated violence", you would have to seriously consider most games that boys play started when they were very young. For me it would be when me and my brother played 'pirates' and 'cowboys and indians' - those childhood events would be simulated violence too. I think this goes back to much bigger issues where our society has praised violence so highly and in so many different ways. Violence is the end all be all ultimate win, the ultimate awesomeness, etc. I think this is the core of the problem, or much closer to the core than video games. Violent video games are really just a natural extension to the games that most of us played as boys, the real question is why did we play them? Did we have to be taught to play at violence?
I actually completely lost my taste in violent games and violent movies after I started learning philosophy and specifically about the NAP - BUT had I stopped playing violent games before learning WHY, it would not have mattered at all, it would have been meaningless. The games were not effecting my core belief system, I wanted to play the games because of what my core believe system desired. When new knowledge changed my core beliefs, the desire to play the violent games went away naturally.
Someone said something along the lines of if you play at it enough, you will become like it. I don't think that really happens with violent games, but they could have other effects on us that are even worse. I have been gaming since I was in grade school at it didn't turn me into a violent person, it turned me into a techie-geek type person who now makes a living off of technology. I think what may be worse is not how this violence changes are actions, but what effect it has on our beliefs, our philosophy - as a whole society. Media violence (I'm talking about gaming/movies/etc. here) may not make people into violent killers, but I think it does lead them down the path of supporting violent ideologies such as nationalism, statism, etc. This topic really deserves so much more time.
liberty student: auctionguy10:Not all games are about simulating violence against another person. Quote where I said they were? Quote it now.
Obviously I can't- but why did you say this: "Yes, people who do not want to simulate violence, and do not rationalize and equivocate doing non-libertarian things in VR are the ones out of touch with their emotions. "?
I never said that people who don't want to simulate violence are out of touch with their emotions. I'm talking about people who don't want to even enjoy videogames at all and think they're all the same thing.
liberty student: auctionguy10:You're categorizing all games into one genre, don't you think so? Where? Source it now.
I can't source it obviously, but you weren't differentiating between super violent games and others so what am I supposed to think?
auctionguy10:Obviously I can't
auctionguy10:I can't source it obviously
So you admit you were lying. Good enough for me.
liberty student: auctionguy10:Obviously I can't auctionguy10:I can't source it obviously So you admit you were lying. Good enough for me.
Glad I was able to help.
At the same time, you were putting words in my mouth. I never said that people who don't want to simulate violence against others are out of touch with their emotions- so why'd you even mention that? I mean if you're not going to respond to that point I made- then why'd you respond at all? Just for the feeling of "victory" of the debate or something?
If video games are evil because they are violent than so is shakespear, or any book/story/song/movie or any other form of literature which implies violence in any way shape or form.
Games are just another media, an open canvass just like a book of text for relaying information.
It is certainly a powerful argument to claim that simulated child porn is wrong, and so simulated violence must also be wrong, but if we go that route we cannot arbitrarily attack video games alone. There are books, movies, songs which are far worse then most anything you'll find in the video game market.
I won't lie, nearly all the fiction books I indulge in have some form of violence or another. I am also a typical guy, I like action based movies that tend to be a bit more violent.
If we took this argument to its logical conclusion in what way would we have to live in order to avoid violence of all types in every facet of our lives. Living in a box sucks!
auctionguy10:why'd you respond at all? Just for the feeling of "victory" of the debate or something?
No, because you were obviously lying, and I don't like people lying about my position. You can dislike my position, you can hate me. But don't lie. If you want to know where I stand, just ask, and I will make it crystal clear to you. Then you can tell me I am wrong. But don't frame my position in a dishonest manner, and then claim I hold a bad position.
That's intellectual sloth. I am here. I will answer honest questions from sincere people.
liberty student: auctionguy10:why'd you respond at all? Just for the feeling of "victory" of the debate or something? No, because you were obviously lying, and I don't like people lying about my position. You can dislike my position, you can hate me. But don't lie. If you want to know where I stand, just ask, and I will make it crystal clear to you. Then you can tell me I am wrong. But don't frame my position in a dishonest manner, and then claim I hold a bad position. That's intellectual sloth. I am here. I will answer honest questions from sincere people.
Well when you said this "Yes, people who do not want to simulate violence, and do not rationalize and equivocate doing non-libertarian things in VR are the ones out of touch with their emotions. "? - You were lying about MY position, silly! You don't have to get so dramatic- I'm all for getting a better understanding of each other's position. Going off of what you said, you don't see how I could've jumped to the conclusion about your position as I did?
auctionguy10:Well when you said this "Yes, people who do not want to simulate violence, and do not rationalize and equivocate doing non-libertarian things in VR are the ones out of touch with their emotions. "? - You were lying about MY position, silly!
I was mocking the lie you posted with sarcasm.
auctionguy10:You don't have to get so dramatic- I'm all for getting a better understanding of each other's position.
You haven't proven that yet.
auctionguy10:Going off of what you said, you don't see how I could've jumped to the conclusion about your position as I did?
No, because there have been mostly two responses to my posts in this thread. People ignore them, and people try to rationalize their behaviour. The people who rationalize, are generally claiming that there is a difference between simulating violence, and acting violent IRL.
To which I would then reply
Would anyone here be opposed to a game where players could simulate hurting someone you love (family member for example)?
Would you play such a game (since it is only a game)?
The two aren't analogous. Video games feature violence against totally fictional people as a general rule, and when it's against actual historical characters, it's almost universally bad ones (I can't imagine anyone being opposed to shooting Nazis in Medal of Honor or Soviets in Operation Flashpoint).
Kraig: Media violence (I'm talking about gaming/movies/etc. here) may not make people into violent killers, but I think it does lead them down the path of supporting violent ideologies such as nationalism, statism, etc. This topic really deserves so much more time.
Media violence (I'm talking about gaming/movies/etc. here) may not make people into violent killers, but I think it does lead them down the path of supporting violent ideologies such as nationalism, statism, etc. This topic really deserves so much more time.
Some games like Metal Gear Solid are pacifistic in tones and theme despite the glory violence.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
I've been playing games since I was a wee lad, from Baldur's Gate and StarCraft to 'ultra-violent' games like Postal, Soldier of Fortune and GTA. I also enjoy military shooters like Call of Duty and Operation Flashpoint (America's Army isn't very good).
Their ability to simulate (and stimulate!) anything resembling actual violence is overrated.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
the point is, it is military propaganda. there are direct links provided in this thread to point out the direct involvment of the military in making video games. it's to prepare those that have this tendency. how somebody acquires such a tendency would be far too much of an open debate. but the factual trail of the military making video games, along with the military surveying new recruits to tally how many of them came to the military due to video games is the ordinary feedback loop that any business model uses to find out how much their advertising is working.
obviously to some people these are simply games. obviously to other people it is how they prepare to do battle. and for the military to make technology that mimics video game components makes it an easy adaption mechanism from ones home to battlefield tank.
zefreak:Soldier of Fortune
That was a brutal game. You could actually blow off body parts and if you decapitated them you would hear a sucking sound.
liberty student:Would anyone here be opposed to a game a book where players the reader could simulate is described as hurting someone you love (family member for example)?
My argument is that games are no different than any other type of fictional medium. Do you not read any fiction what so ever? Many of my favorite classic novels had plenty of violence. I also have played some implied violent games and watch somewhat violent movies(The ones I can tolerate, I have a weak stomach).
I'll admit I cannot hold myself to that standard, can you? Aside from that, there are video games that have provided some truly brilliant experiences. Their artistic value or intellectual value, truely something to cherish. Take Braid, or Portal for example. The point of those two games isn't the violence at all, but the puzzles, the art, ect.....
I'll be the first to admit that recent games have been lacking severely in story content. Most of the story's are fairly cheesy and ridiculous. Though before the time of insane graphics we were blessed with some fairly indept story based games like FF3/2 ect. On occasion today you will find things of that scale. Story's that if written would have been just as good.
Planescape: Torment had the greatest story ever in a game, hands down. The setting, characters, and art were top notch. A truly intelligent game.
liberty student:No, because there have been mostly two responses to my posts in this thread. People ignore them, and people try to rationalize their behaviour. The people who rationalize, are generally claiming that there is a difference between simulating violence, and acting violent IRL.
liberty student:To which I would then reply Would anyone here be opposed to a game where players could simulate hurting someone you love (family member for example)? Would you play such a game (since it is only a game)?
Ah, the conflation of the aesthetic and the moral. Please don't do that again. It makes you look really stupid when you do.
Laughing Man: zefreak:Soldier of Fortune That was a brutal game. You could actually blow off body parts and if you decapitated them you would hear a sucking sound.
Didn't play it, but from what I recall from the reviews it was also a game that was propagandistic. In the sense that it was one of the the "don't bother with an actual story, everybody knows the Russians and Arabs are evil" products.
filc:My argument is that games are no different than any other type of fictional medium.
I agree, but I don't know that it undermines the point I am making.
filc:Do you not read any fiction what so ever?
I do, but generally not of the violent sort.
filc:Many of my favorite classic novels had plenty of violence. I also have played some implied violent games and watch somewhat violent movies(The ones I can tolerate, I have a weak stomach).
Ditto here. My point is, as I continue to make my transformation into someone who doesn't just give lip service to peace and markets, but actually wants to be a part of them, the attraction to violence, movies with massive property destruction, themes of sadism or fear aren't what turn my crank anymore.
I'm not judging someone who enjoys this stuff. They are not "bad libertarians" but it is amusing and tragic to see people equivocate and rationalize. If as some have indicated, it is about two totally different ethical concepts, I can buy that. But then I think the case can be made that anything that happens in VR which conflicts with libertarian ideals (say non-aggression) is ok as well. I mean, is it worse to shoot someone in a game or to rape them? I want to get into the mind of people who can justify playing at shooting but not at raping. Is it just a cultural no-no? Sort of reminds me of that lousy movie that came out (last year?) Gamer, in which there is a virtual world of violence, and one of debauchery. And the violent world is held up as the more manly and courageous, while the debauched world (of voluntary relations) is treated as slimy and amoral.
filc:I'll admit I cannot hold myself to that standard, can you?
If you're asking me if I am the perfect libertarian man, I am not. I have many, many failures which I try to address. I struggle with the issue of following the state's decrees every day, knowing full well that they are illegitimate and unjust. I was actually quite depressed about it in the last 4 months of 2009. So no, I don't claim to never read anything with any mention of violence, or to participate in any media which has violence, but I love Stargate, and can now barely watch it with the blatant militarism and pro-state stuff in it. Despite the great sci-fi backdrop, the show is basically a mockery of what I would hope exploration would be. And likewise, I saw the trailer for the new Iron Man, and all I could think throughout, is how much private property gets destroyed in order to protect people's private property.
That sort of doublethink is exactly what the state relies on.
Maybe if libertarians stop supporting pro-violence or pro-state entertainment, there will be less of it, and maybe even a market for entertainment about markets, which I would consider to be double good. Diminish the state, raise up markets.
If only we could align our aesthetics with our values. I can't imagine it's easy to preach peace and non-aggression when everyone knows one spends hours each day getting virtual kills.
filc:Aside from that, there are video games that have provided some truly brilliant experiences.
I don't doubt that. But the FPS genre and even the RTS strategy genre (much to my dismay) have become very hollow and almost unplayable for people who are entertained by building rather than destroying.
liberty student: auctionguy10:Well when you said this "Yes, people who do not want to simulate violence, and do not rationalize and equivocate doing non-libertarian things in VR are the ones out of touch with their emotions. "? - You were lying about MY position, silly! I was mocking the lie you posted with sarcasm.
I wasn't lying about anything- it was an opinion based on how I felt from z1235's statement that all games look the same to him- and anyone that agrees with that. Maybe I should've clarified who I was referring to- because again I wasn't talking about anyone who finds violent games abhorrent. There was no intention to deceive anyone here so quit that already.
liberty student: auctionguy10:You don't have to get so dramatic- I'm all for getting a better understanding of each other's position. You haven't proven that yet.
That's nonsense. The fact that I'm willing to talk to you about it is proof enough. If you don't think so then I'll make the judgement that you're being hard-headed for the sake of being hard-headed.
liberty student: auctionguy10:Going off of what you said, you don't see how I could've jumped to the conclusion about your position as I did? No, because there have been mostly two responses to my posts in this thread. People ignore them, and people try to rationalize their behaviour. The people who rationalize, are generally claiming that there is a difference between simulating violence, and acting violent IRL.
Did I - at any point try to rationalize the violence in videogames? No I didn't- so why keep bringing that up in reference to anything I said. All I really did in this thread was talk about what I thought was the beauty that there can be in videogames and people should try them out instead of just ignoring them on the basis that they are video games. You're putting me in the category of people who are rationalizing the behavior of simulating violence- don't do that when its not the case.
I don't understand the argument here I'm lost and rather confused? How are people associating actual human life with pixels? If you are using it as alternative to actually practice killing REAL individuals then I would be a little nervous, but other than that... I fail to see the argument.
Liberty Student you should try and play Left 4 Dead 2.
liberty student:I agree, but I don't know that it undermines the point I am making.
liberty student:Ditto here. My point is, as I continue to make my transformation into someone who doesn't just give lip service to peace and markets, but actually wants to be a part of them, the attraction to violence, movies with massive property destruction, themes of sadism or fear aren't what turn my crank anymore.
liberty student:I'm not judging someone who enjoys this stuff.
LvMIenthusiast:I don't understand the argument here I'm lost and rather confused? How are people associating actual human life with pixels?
Knight_of_BAAWA: filc:My argument is that games are no different than any other type of fictional medium. liberty student:I agree, but I don't know that it undermines the point I am making.Of course it does! You're trying to blur the line between fantasy and reality. Won't work.
I assume you'll agree that's what the role of propaganda plays. To blur the lines between what is fantasy and what is real. Before a person shoots in war they first have a go at target practice.
And yet clearly The Lord of the Rings trilogy is fantasy. Fiction. Right?
The problem comes in when people want to equate fantasy with reality--when they want us to believe that we've always been at war with Eastasia or that 2 + 2 = 5. Yes, propaganda plays that role.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yet clearly The Lord of the Rings trilogy is fantasy. Fiction. Right?
of course. i know logic too much to say otherwise, but how many people have you come across that don't understand logic? i know more than one as you've argued with numerous that have passed through this forum on the invalidity or validity of their use of logic.
Knight_of_BAAWA:The problem comes in when people want to equate fantasy with reality--when they want us to believe that we've always been at war with Eastasia or that 2 + 2 = 5. Yes, propaganda plays that role.
indeed. Aristotilean logic generally isn't taught in public schools and I believe Catholic schools dropped it from their cirriculum in the 1990's. There's people on TV or for that matter, people that set-up on a podium in front of a white building and say something and most people think of it as fact. They take their word on it. They believe it. And any questioning of it is demonized into being either a conspiracy or the person is denounced as a leftist or rightist but the facts or logic are hardly ever actually debated in the so-called mainstream public arena. How many people would jump off a bridge if Obama or Bush asked them to in the name of humanitarian or national security priorities.
here's a list of what's been subverted in the classroom: logic, increasingly sound theoretical economics (if not near or at 100%), history is told through the eyes of the victor, sociology is a joke with their emphasis on survey's and theoreticals on how society can be construed in a positivist or natural science way, picking up a trade is still demonized over going to the university for some Art degree that will only find most people a job at McDonald's, etc.... I'm generalizing here.
auctionguy10:I wasn't lying about anything
Do I really need to go back, and pull your admission that you claimed things which weren't true?
auctionguy10:All I really did in this thread was talk about what I thought was the beauty that there can be in videogames and people should try them out instead of just ignoring them on the basis that they are video games
But this is a strawman. Who said they avoided the games because they are games? The gist of the discussion is the content, not the medium.
auctionguy10:You're putting me in the category of people who are rationalizing the behavior of simulating violence- don't do that when its not the case.
Do you think the violence in games is appealing?
liberty student: auctionguy10:I wasn't lying about anything Do I really need to go back, and pull your admission that you claimed things which weren't true?
Do I really need to go back over and over and explain how YOU claimed things that weren't true regarding my point about certain people being out of touch with their emotions? When I bring up your lie- you call it sarcasm and let yourself off scot free. My opinion about something isn't a lie- its how I felt. When I was talking about games- I was talking about videogames as a genre in general. So when you responded to me I thought you were putting all games in that one category of being violent. I wasn't out to deceive anyone- that's what a lie is- the way you're painting me. It was a simple mistake you're getting dramatic over- but its a clever way to make me out to be someone that can't be trusted.
liberty student: auctionguy10:All I really did in this thread was talk about what I thought was the beauty that there can be in videogames and people should try them out instead of just ignoring them on the basis that they are video games But this is a strawman. Who said they avoided the games because they are games? The gist of the discussion is the content, not the medium.
I mentioned who said it already a bunch of times- and bolded his account name. He mentioned that he didn't like games and finds them to be all the same. I apologize if I put you in that category- but since you responded to me I thought you were in agreement with him- lol that's the only reason me and you are even having a back and forth.
liberty student: auctionguy10:You're putting me in the category of people who are rationalizing the behavior of simulating violence- don't do that when its not the case. Do you think the violence in games is appealing?
I'm indifferent to violence in games. Some people find it appealing- to me if that's the only selling point in game then its probably a poor game. I've mentioned a few times(even linked you guys to a trailer)- to the types of games I find appealing and why I do. Violence was never one of the reasons.