Well, it's several things at the moment. Is something that is offensive art? Should we judge someone on their choice of media? How well written is that short story the parents wrote about killing their child?
maybe, maybe and a masterpiece, in that order
neither of those first two questions are answerable in the absolute
Well shit, if it's a masterpiece why isn't it on Steam?
it was witch hunted by social justice warriors
It was about corruption in short story journalism.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Another example: Westboro Baptist Church. Their actions make them generally terrible people on many levels (assuming they are playing their faith straight, they are hateful and meanspirited, assuming they are just playing it for the lawsuit funding angle, they are even more hateful and meanspirited with a dash of evil chessmaster, assuming both add it all up for a generally terrible group of people that no one really should like).
Can they do what they do? Yes. It's a consequence of the legal freedoms we enjoy that there will be assholes out there making terrible things. That doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade and judge them for their actions.
Everyone is accountable for what they choose to do in life. If you choose to play Hatred, I'm not going to automatically hate you but I will think you strange for funding such a game. If you post regularly about how it's the best game for reasons of it's mechanics but point out that the premise is severely disturbing and flawed, I probably won't care about it when assessing my opinions of you. If you go on about how it is the best game you've played and you want a sequel, I'd probably avoid speaking with you and think you a potential psychopath.
That said, I'm still really not sure about judging people on the video games they play, probably as a reaction to coming to maturity during the Jack Thompson debacles made the whole thing a sore subject, so I lack objectivity on that matter.
Why are video games subject to the possibility of censorship in ways that other media is not? Yes, I know this game has not been censored as of yet, but that doesnt change the question. I would also like to point people to the movie "this film is not yet rated" to see just some of the reasons why censorship by even non government agents still hurts art.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
How exactly are they subject to censorship in ways other media are not? The only difference right now between video games and all other forms of media are the amount of time they have existed. Statuary, pottery, books, radio, film, comics, TV and all the rest have gone through similar trails during their existence. The only apparent difference is that Video Games are still modern enough to where the argument possibly hasn't reached the same state of "settled" for distribution.
If anything, due to the means of distribution games are less censured than other media because you can download them in private directly from source more often than not, making middle-man censorship (such as with film ratings or book sellers) a non-issue. Hatred, for example, could just sell direct from their own server infrastructure if they choose to (avoiding the need for Steam altogether). They might not sell as well, but there is no real requirement to use anyone else's distribution capabilities.
And there really isn't a sanctioning body that could effectively or permanently stop them from distributing the game to a willing audience unless ISPs start censuring content (which hasn't happened in most of the West).
Why are video games subject to the possibility of censorship in ways that other media is not? Yes, I know this game has not been censored as of yet, but that doesnt change the question. I would also like to point people to the movie "this film is not yet rated" to see just some of the reasons why censorship by even non government agents still hurts art.
Interactivity cause the media to cease to be passively expierienced; instead of just waiting and observing the art, players have to actively engage it to observe it. further, the gameplay is likely to effect a greater range of emotions in a player then in a movie or book; A game like dark souls can have a profound effect on the player ranging from fear to anger to laughter and joy.
Why are video games subject to the possibility of censorship in ways that other media is not? Yes, I know this game has not been censored as of yet, but that doesnt change the question. I would also like to point people to the movie "this film is not yet rated" to see just some of the reasons why censorship by even non government agents still hurts art.
Interactivity cause the media to cease to be passively expierienced; instead of just waiting and observing the art, players have to actively engage it to observe it. further, the gameplay is likely to effect a greater range of emotions in a player then in a movie or book; A game like dark souls can have a profound effect on the player ranging from fear to anger to laughter and joy.
Everything you wrote here has never been proven and rebutted though...
It's a weasel argument "likely" isn't the case there are a wide range of studies proving that false.
As for judging people by what they play... well I admit saying a witch hunt may have been exaggerating the point but it seems silly to me to judge people by what games they play I find it hard to understand that line of thought.
So you're saying you never judge anyone by the media they enjoy? I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I mean shit I judge people on the sports teams they follow!
Well...actually yeah I never really cared. Don't get me wrong if they ask my option on a game I think is terrible I will tell them so but beyond that no its not something I concern myself with.
How unrealistic, like I literally do not believe you because I can not think of anyone who would not see at least something in someones taste of something they would judge someone over. Even Budha himself would be all "Holy shit you like winger? What the fuck is wrong with you."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
How unrealistic, like I literally do not believe you because I can not think of anyone who would not see at least something in someones taste of something they would judge someone over. Even Budha himself would be all "Holy shit you like winger? What the fuck is wrong with you."
I guess I would ask those who say they don't judge others by the media they consume if they believe Gone Home and Depression Quest and Candy Crush players hardcore gamers?
If not, how dare you judge people based off the games they play.
No I don't.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Why are video games subject to the possibility of censorship in ways that other media is not? Yes, I know this game has not been censored as of yet, but that doesnt change the question. I would also like to point people to the movie "this film is not yet rated" to see just some of the reasons why censorship by even non government agents still hurts art.
Interactivity cause the media to cease to be passively expierienced; instead of just waiting and observing the art, players have to actively engage it to observe it. further, the gameplay is likely to effect a greater range of emotions in a player then in a movie or book; A game like dark souls can have a profound effect on the player ranging from fear to anger to laughter and joy.
Everything you wrote here has never been proven and rebutted though...
It's a weasel argument "likely" isn't the case there are a wide range of studies proving that false.
As for judging people by what they play... well I admit saying a witch hunt may have been exaggerating the point but it seems silly to me to judge people by what games they play I find it hard to understand that line of thought.
Primalight, judging doesn't necessarily mean saying "that person is terrible," it means to form a conclusion. When people do things you have points of reference about them from which you make conclusions. If I see someone playing an EA Sports football title, I would judge that person as being someone who liked sports. Similarly, when I see someone playing a game that is mostly senseless violence, I would assume that person likes senseless violence (because if they didn't like it, why would they be playing). If I'm given additional information, such as they are playing it to review it, or to see what the fuss is about, I have more information to reorient that information.
GTA is an interesting example. Because I know what that game is about and what the mechanics are I can't hugely draw too many conclusions about people who play that game due to the sandbox nature of it. While you can murder hookers you can also just drive around, or complete plot based quests for a narrative, or just play around with the physics engine. All are ways people play GTA. So while it has violent qualities, it's a bit harder to assess anything about someone playing it aside from the fact they are playing a AAA title. If they then say "well, I mostly play it to kill hookers and crash into the police" well then I'm going to make some additional assessments about that person.
To assume you wouldn't be judged for any action you take publicly, or for any information you share with other people, is more boggling in my mind.
I think its because people don't understand the difference between prejudice (which everyone on the face of the earth has) and discrimination (acting on that prejudice). Its that whole bullshit behind "I'm color blind I just see people" and that's horseshit, no one literally does not notice someones race, for good or for bad, its completely made up that you can miss that someone is of "blank" race, or "blank" sex.
In much the same way you can't tell me you haven't reacted negatively to someone liking something you don't like. Be it music, movies, games, or even clothing choices, at some point you have seen someone enjoy something you don't and thought less of them for it.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So you're saying you never judge anyone by the media they enjoy? I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I mean shit I judge people on the sports teams they follow!
No? I might judge their taste in media.
Which is judging the person for the media they enjoy, now you're just talking past it. "Look I judge the media but not the people who enjoy it." Oh bullshit.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Why are video games subject to the possibility of censorship in ways that other media is not? Yes, I know this game has not been censored as of yet, but that doesnt change the question. I would also like to point people to the movie "this film is not yet rated" to see just some of the reasons why censorship by even non government agents still hurts art.
Interactivity cause the media to cease to be passively expierienced; instead of just waiting and observing the art, players have to actively engage it to observe it. further, the gameplay is likely to effect a greater range of emotions in a player then in a movie or book; A game like dark souls can have a profound effect on the player ranging from fear to anger to laughter and joy.
Everything you wrote here has never been proven and rebutted though...
It's a weasel argument "likely" isn't the case there are a wide range of studies proving that false.
As for judging people by what they play... well I admit saying a witch hunt may have been exaggerating the point but it seems silly to me to judge people by what games they play I find it hard to understand that line of thought.
Primalight, judging doesn't necessarily mean saying "that person is terrible," it means to form a conclusion. When people do things you have points of reference about them from which you make conclusions. If I see someone playing an EA Sports football title, I would judge that person as being someone who liked sports. Similarly, when I see someone playing a game that is mostly senseless violence, I would assume that person likes senseless violence (because if they didn't like it, why would they be playing). If I'm given additional information, such as they are playing it to review it, or to see what the fuss is about, I have more information to reorient that information.
GTA is an interesting example. Because I know what that game is about and what the mechanics are I can't hugely draw too many conclusions about people who play that game due to the sandbox nature of it. While you can murder hookers you can also just drive around, or complete plot based quests for a narrative, or just play around with the physics engine. All are ways people play GTA. So while it has violent qualities, it's a bit harder to assess anything about someone playing it aside from the fact they are playing a AAA title. If they then say "well, I mostly play it to kill hookers and crash into the police" well then I'm going to make some additional assessments about that person.
To assume you wouldn't be judged for any action you take publicly, or for any information you share with other people, is more boggling in my mind.
I... I just assume they find that game fun. I never have drawn a conclusion past well I guess they just like that game.
I don't know maybe I am just weird but I don't attribute peoples tastes into media as that much of a straight link. The most I notice is if a person buys a certain genre or games of a certain difficulty what type of video game player they are but that is really it.
I honestly want to know is this a odd way to look at it? I never put any thought into it until now.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
So you're saying you never judge anyone by the media they enjoy? I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I mean shit I judge people on the sports teams they follow!
Well...actually yeah I never really cared. Don't get me wrong if they ask my option on a game I think is terrible I will tell them so but beyond that no its not something I concern myself with.
I know this is categorically false from your post history, as you have made all sorts of judgement on people base upon their religion (especially Islam) within the last month. Faith is just another form of media we esteem and consume, functionally there is no difference except to the degree in which we hold them in esteem.
If you see someone consumes right-wing political nonfiction for their media consumption, that tells you a lot of information without even going into personal bias (that they enjoy learning the opinions of others on political thought, are willing to pay for and spend time hearing political ideologies for a specific political spectrum, and if they are advocating to others reading it that they either very much support or very much disavow that political thought).
You don't, however, think "man has book" as the long and short of your assessment. Unless you have no critical thinking capability, anyway.
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Or, specifically in video games: A guy says he likes fighting games. That tells me he like competitive challenges. If he then tells me he likes Mortal Kombat I would likely assume he is either a fan of mid-90s titles and/or is a fan of Asian martial arts. If he tells me he likes Mortal Kombat only for the gory finishing moves, I assume he is kinda creepy and probably not someone to keep talking to.
Well I don't look at video games in depth when it comes to personal choice. Its a game it is at the end of the day a toy nothing more nothing less.
I put a hell of a lot more into someone claiming to be a part of a religion that teaches the whole "kill all non-believers holy war thing" .
I do put more stock into peoples political and religious beliefs then I do what they purchase for entertainment I see them as two different things rather them one shared. I don't for instance believe a person reading Harry Potter believes in magic.
I kinda see where you are coming from but you are trying to merge two different things together where I can not see them fitting. What you practice and believe in for everyday life is not equivalent to what you find entertaining in a movie.
Well I don't look at video games in depth when it comes to personal choice. Its a game it is at the end of the day a toy nothing more nothing less.
I put a hell of a lot more into someone claiming to be a part of a religion that teaches the who "kill all non-believers holy war thing" .
I do put more stock into peoples political and religious beliefs then I do what they purchase for entertainment I see them as two different things rather them one shared. I don't for instance believe a person reading Harry Potter believes in magic.
I kinda see where you are coming from but you are trying to merge two different things together where I can not see them fitting. What you practice and believe in for everyday life is not equivalent to what you find entertaining in a movie.
What you practice and believe in every day life influences what you consume. It's not a stretch to say that you can find out a lot about someone from the media they consume.
No I don't.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Why are video games subject to the possibility of censorship in ways that other media is not? Yes, I know this game has not been censored as of yet, but that doesnt change the question. I would also like to point people to the movie "this film is not yet rated" to see just some of the reasons why censorship by even non government agents still hurts art.
Interactivity cause the media to cease to be passively expierienced; instead of just waiting and observing the art, players have to actively engage it to observe it. further, the gameplay is likely to effect a greater range of emotions in a player then in a movie or book; A game like dark souls can have a profound effect on the player ranging from fear to anger to laughter and joy.
Everything you wrote here has never been proven and rebutted though...
It's a weasel argument "likely" isn't the case there are a wide range of studies proving that false.
As for judging people by what they play... well I admit saying a witch hunt may have been exaggerating the point but it seems silly to me to judge people by what games they play I find it hard to understand that line of thought.
Primalight, judging doesn't necessarily mean saying "that person is terrible," it means to form a conclusion. When people do things you have points of reference about them from which you make conclusions. If I see someone playing an EA Sports football title, I would judge that person as being someone who liked sports.
Similarly, when I see someone playing a game that is mostly senseless violence, I would assume that person likes senseless violence (because if they didn't like it, why would they be playing).
I like playing Ratchet and Clank. Can you assume that I enjoy turning aliens into sheep?
You're drawing a connecting line between virtual representations of a thing and the thing itself that simply isn't there. If somebody is playing an EA sports game, I can't conclude that they like sports, I can only conclude that they like video games about sports. Personally, I find following sports teams to be boring and playing sports doesn't match my physical abilities, but video game sports canbe quite fun, because they remove the reasons I have for not playing in real life.
If somebody is playing a violent game, that doesn't mean they like violence, it means they like violent video games. I would never hurt anyone, because it's wrong and harmful and carries consequences and frankly cutting up bodies gets exhausting after a while. But video game violence is quite fun, because games remove the reasons I have for not hurting people in real life.
The experience of moving your thumbs and watching a screen is very different from stabbing a screaming, bleeding human being to death. Even if there's a screaming, bleeding virtual human being on the screen. There's no reason or logic behind judging people based on the morality of their entertainment--choosing the Evil alignment in Infamous does not make you evil, or any more likely than anybody else to acquire and abuse electric superpowers.
To assume you wouldn't be judged for any action you take publicly, or for any information you share with other people, is more boggling in my mind.
These aren't actions, they're thoughts. You're assuming thoughts lead to action, when in fact it's very common for people to have socially unacceptable impulses or fantaises that they don't act upon. I've certainly been frustrated enough at times to gleefully imagine killing whoever it is I'm angry with, but that doesn't make me a murderer or even abnormal.
If a society is to be free, its members must first and foremost be free within their own heads--free to have thoughts which go against that society's rules, so long as those thoughts do not translate into harmful actions... And even then, it is the actions which are worth condemning, not the thoughts which led to them.
How exactly are they subject to censorship in ways other media are not? The only difference right now between video games and all other forms of media are the amount of time they have existed. Statuary, pottery, books, radio, film, comics, TV and all the rest have gone through similar trails during their existence. The only apparent difference is that Video Games are still modern enough to where the argument possibly hasn't reached the same state of "settled" for distribution.
I think this is really the main difference between video games and other forms of media, in terms of how it's treated.
Yes, it's true that video games are a more interactive medium than reading a comic book or listening to music or watching a film, but this didn't stop people and organizations from censoring and banning some of those. In my view, video games are simply going though the same social backlash that the older forms of entertainment have gone through.
I do put more stock into peoples political and religious beliefs then I do what they purchase for entertainment I see them as two different things rather them one shared. I don't for instance believe a person reading Harry Potter believes in magic..
A person "reading Harry Potter" likely enjoys children's fiction and probably fantasy fiction. There is not logical connection between "reads a novel with witches and wizards" and "is not rooted reality." A person who is reading Harry Potter while wearing a hand-crafted Gryphondoor Outfit and has cut a scar into his forehead and is running around shouting the spells and pointing at people might lead me to think that assuming he has had some sort of disconnect assuming it isn't at a convention or other socially understandable context.
I do put more stock into peoples political and religious beliefs then I do what they purchase for entertainment I see them as two different things rather them one shared. I don't for instance believe a person reading Harry Potter believes in magic..
A person "reading Harry Potter" likely enjoys children's fiction and probably fantasy fiction. There is not logical connection between "reads a novel with witches and wizards" and "is not rooted reality." A person who is reading Harry Potter while wearing a hand-crafted Gryphondoor Outfit and has cut a scar into his forehead and is running around shouting the spells and pointing at people might lead me to think that assuming he has had some sort of disconnect assuming it isn't at a convention or other socially understandable context.
I kinda think you just try to read into people to much over something that doesn't really reveal a hell of a lot personally. You can rationalize it and just like cold readings you will be right some of the time given a large enough pool of people but I just can't really see a direct connection as you do.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I do put more stock into peoples political and religious beliefs then I do what they purchase for entertainment I see them as two different things rather them one shared. I don't for instance believe a person reading Harry Potter believes in magic..
A person "reading Harry Potter" likely enjoys children's fiction and probably fantasy fiction. There is not logical connection between "reads a novel with witches and wizards" and "is not rooted reality." A person who is reading Harry Potter while wearing a hand-crafted Gryphondoor Outfit and has cut a scar into his forehead and is running around shouting the spells and pointing at people might lead me to think that assuming he has had some sort of disconnect assuming it isn't at a convention or other socially understandable context.
What exactly does the book itself add to your judgment there? It's like, yeah, if I saw a guy shooting up his office and killing people while (somehow also) playing Hatred, I would think there's a problem there. Also if he wasn't playing Hatred. Really the game is the least important part of that scenario, don't you think?
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I do put more stock into peoples political and religious beliefs then I do what they purchase for entertainment I see them as two different things rather them one shared. I don't for instance believe a person reading Harry Potter believes in magic..
A person "reading Harry Potter" likely enjoys children's fiction and probably fantasy fiction. There is not logical connection between "reads a novel with witches and wizards" and "is not rooted reality." A person who is reading Harry Potter while wearing a hand-crafted Gryphondoor Outfit and has cut a scar into his forehead and is running around shouting the spells and pointing at people might lead me to think that assuming he has had some sort of disconnect assuming it isn't at a convention or other socially understandable context.
What exactly does the book itself add to your judgment there? It's like, yeah, if I saw a guy shooting up his office and killing people while (somehow also) playing Hatred, I would think there's a problem there. Also if he wasn't playing Hatred. Really the game is the least important part of that scenario, don't you think?
I agree!
But that doesn't mean that, barring office murder or other more extreme examples of threatening or alarming behavior, that I wouldn't consider someone who was enthusiastic about a game like Hatred as being dangerous or creepy. Not in the same order of magnitude as someone actually doing terrible actions.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I mean there is a difference between overthinking something and making pretty safe calls here.
Making mind-gymnastics over what mental state a person is in for ordering a type of latte is pretty shaky.
Making an assumption over a guy ordering a latte asking for the word "Rape" to be spelled out in sprinkles while leering at the barrista is probably less shaky.
I mean there is a difference between overthinking something and making pretty safe calls here.
Making mind-gymnastics over what mental state a person is in for ordering a type of latte is pretty shaky.
Making an assumption over a guy ordering a latte asking for the word "Rape" to be spelled out in sprinkles while leering at the barrista is probably less shaky.
Not even close to saying someone is a shitty person from the simple act of consuming a type of media that is not the result of actual people being harmed in any way.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I mean there is a difference between overthinking something and making pretty safe calls here.
Making mind-gymnastics over what mental state a person is in for ordering a type of latte is pretty shaky.
Making an assumption over a guy ordering a latte asking for the word "Rape" to be spelled out in sprinkles while leering at the barrista is probably less shaky.
Not even close to saying someone is a shitty person from the simple act of consuming a type of media that is not the result of actual people being harmed in any way.
No, but I never said I would think someone is a shitty person for consuming a type of media. I would find someone laying Hatred creepy and avoid them, because the type of person who takes enjoyment in killing "innocents" by the game's own logic wouldn't be a person I would feel comfortable around.
Enc on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I mean there is a difference between overthinking something and making pretty safe calls here.
Making mind-gymnastics over what mental state a person is in for ordering a type of latte is pretty shaky.
Making an assumption over a guy ordering a latte asking for the word "Rape" to be spelled out in sprinkles while leering at the barrista is probably less shaky.
What if a guy says "Man, I really like this painting" and it's Michelangelo's "Leda and the Swan"? Or "Man, I really like this movie" and it's Irreversible?
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
For the painting it would be hard to say since classical works have a load of contextual history behind them. By itself, that really wouldn't tell me much! If something were added like "I really like this Michelangelo because it's his best use of color" or "I like the fact that this painting is a representation of classical greco-roman myth" or "I like the fact the swan is bonking with the chick" I would probably make additional judgements.
I don't know anything about the film so I don't have a frame of reference.
For the painting it would be hard to say since classical works have a load of contextual history behind them. By itself, that really wouldn't tell me much! If something were added like "I really like this Michelangelo because it's his best use of color" or "I like the fact that this painting is a representation of classical greco-roman myth" or "I like the fact the swan is bonking with the chick" I would probably make additional judgements.
I don't know anything about the film so I don't have a frame of reference.
Its known for opening with a pretty horrible rape scene. But its not the only point of the movie, though someone who said they really like it without couching that in a shit ton of "For's" would raise up my "the fuck is wrong with you"
Much the same way when I tell people about the Walking dead I get into an entire discussion about how its hard to "enjoy" the show because its not entertaining its intriguing for the morality on display and the "What would you dos" it presents, but I'm sure there are fans for the ultra violence and the lawlessness.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
Similarly I'm a fan of the Game of Thrones books but not as much on the TV show because while the violence and sex are important in the book they seem to be (from my watching) way over-focused upon in the show. Context is a big deal.
Its possible for two people to watch Saving Private Ryan and have one like it for the emotional story it tells and another to like it because they got to see people blown into bits. The why is important! The problem here with a game like Hatred is that there arent diverging contexts as the game is advertised. There isn't a narrative designed to complicate the story or tell the emotional downfall that drives a person to eventually have no choices in life from his perspective but to harm others. It just gives you this:
My name is not important. What is important is what I'm going to do ... I just fuckin' hate this world. And the human worms feasting on its carcass. My whole life is just cold, bitter hatred. And I always wanted to die violently. This is the time of vengeance and no life is worth saving. And I will put in the grave as many as I can. It's time for me to kill. And it's time for me to die. My genocide crusade begins here.
They are specifically stating that there isn't a narrative beyond you are an angry person who wants to commit murder suicide. That's the context. That's all the context.
I think its because people don't understand the difference between prejudice (which everyone on the face of the earth has) and discrimination (acting on that prejudice). Its that whole bullshit behind "I'm color blind I just see people" and that's horseshit, no one literally does not notice someones race, for good or for bad, its completely made up that you can miss that someone is of "blank" race, or "blank" sex.
In much the same way you can't tell me you haven't reacted negatively to someone liking something you don't like. Be it music, movies, games, or even clothing choices, at some point you have seen someone enjoy something you don't and thought less of them for it.
Sure, but that is a personal flaw of the judge, not the one who is judged. I'm not saying I haven't ever even momentarily judged someone for, say, using a controller for a PC FPS game, but that's my weird hangup, it doesn't mean I can, as some people have said, "go through my steam friendslist and figure out who is a shitty person," based on if I see a controller icon or whatever. Ditto for everything else.
Half this thread is people saying, "I cross the street if I see some 'urban youths'" and being high fived for it, not people saying, "I have too, but I really wish that wasn't how our society was."
Why are video games subject to the possibility of censorship in ways that other media is not? Yes, I know this game has not been censored as of yet, but that doesnt change the question. I would also like to point people to the movie "this film is not yet rated" to see just some of the reasons why censorship by even non government agents still hurts art.
Interactivity cause the media to cease to be passively expierienced; instead of just waiting and observing the art, players have to actively engage it to observe it. further, the gameplay is likely to effect a greater range of emotions in a player then in a movie or book; A game like dark souls can have a profound effect on the player ranging from fear to anger to laughter and joy.
Everything you wrote here has never been proven and rebutted though...
It's a weasel argument "likely" isn't the case there are a wide range of studies proving that false.
As for judging people by what they play... well I admit saying a witch hunt may have been exaggerating the point but it seems silly to me to judge people by what games they play I find it hard to understand that line of thought.
Primalight, judging doesn't necessarily mean saying "that person is terrible," it means to form a conclusion. When people do things you have points of reference about them from which you make conclusions. If I see someone playing an EA Sports football title, I would judge that person as being someone who liked sports. Similarly, when I see someone playing a game that is mostly senseless violence, I would assume that person likes senseless violence (because if they didn't like it, why would they be playing). If I'm given additional information, such as they are playing it to review it, or to see what the fuss is about, I have more information to reorient that information.
GTA is an interesting example. Because I know what that game is about and what the mechanics are I can't hugely draw too many conclusions about people who play that game due to the sandbox nature of it. While you can murder hookers you can also just drive around, or complete plot based quests for a narrative, or just play around with the physics engine. All are ways people play GTA. So while it has violent qualities, it's a bit harder to assess anything about someone playing it aside from the fact they are playing a AAA title. If they then say "well, I mostly play it to kill hookers and crash into the police" well then I'm going to make some additional assessments about that person.
To assume you wouldn't be judged for any action you take publicly, or for any information you share with other people, is more boggling in my mind.
Yes, and that's the problem. Given the choice between riding home with the person who has had 4 alcohol drinks in a half hour, and the guy who often crashes his car, both accidentally and on purpose, in GTA, who do you ride with?
This is either the "video games causes violence" argument, or maybe the reverse, of "well, only a sicko would like that game in the first place," both of which are, you know, factually untrue.
You're not entitled to an opinion which is provably wrong. We've already done this. Postal (and GTA, and Postal 2, and Doom, and etc.etc.) has already been released, and almost every person who played it neither had, nor will ever commit a serious violent crime.
Maybe, just maybe, we should judge people on the morally relevant actions that they actually take, like volunteering for charity, or beating their dog, rather than the actions which we inaccurately speculate they may take based on some tea leaf divination?
So you're saying you never judge anyone by the media they enjoy? I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I mean shit I judge people on the sports teams they follow!
No? I might judge their taste in media.
Which is judging the person for the media they enjoy, now you're just talking past it. "Look I judge the media but not the people who enjoy it." Oh bullshit.
Except I mean it mainly in terms of if I will listen to their recommendation of something. Or if I am making a humorous exaggeration about how their support of Bayformers is making movies stupider or something.
But if you're going to claim that it's okay to enjoy violence as long as that violence is just a means to some other end, or as long as everybody involved pretends there's more to it than that, then I'm going to call you out on that because that's hypocritical bullshit. If the issue at hand is whether someone enjoys something, then context doesn't matter unless the context changes the emotion from enjoyment to something else.
Nope. Wrong. Very wrong. Context is how we judge anyone's actions. It's not hypocritical to do at all. You're in fact literally doing it with this statement.
But why does the context matter here? You can't just keep saying "context!" without providing an actual reason as to why it matters.
The context around any action or situation is vital to understanding and judging that situation. A person can enjoy a game because they think the violence is just slapstick nonsense or a satire of a genre. A person can enjoy a game because of the artwork or mechanics it presents. A person can enjoy a game because they hate people and want to hurt them. All of those are reasons to enjoy a game. And I will absolutely judge the last person as someone who is enjoying a game for terrible reasons and in need of help.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yes, and that's the problem. Given the choice between riding home with the person who has had 4 alcohol drinks in a half hour, and the guy who often crashes his car, both accidentally and on purpose, in GTA, who do you ride with?
Neither, assuming I've never seen the other guy drive before. But then, I would ~also~ know that he somehow managed to get to the bar and to work and home most days by driving safely which would make me more likely to assume he just is bad at videogame driving than assuming his actual driving skills are bad. Unless he had a history of totally his real life car as well, in which case I would call a cab for all three of us or use my own car. Assumption folk make are aggregate, those example assumes you know nothing else beyond those two facts to draw upon which makes the entire situation pointless because if that's all you knew you wouldn't go with either.
This is either the "video games causes violence" argument, or maybe the reverse, of "well, only a sicko would like that game in the first place," both of which are, you know, factually untrue.
You're not entitled to an opinion which is provably wrong. We've already done this. Postal (and GTA, and Postal 2, and Doom, and etc.etc.) has already been released, and almost every person who played it neither had, nor will ever commit a serious violent crime.
Maybe, just maybe, we should judge people on the morally relevant actions that they actually take, like volunteering for charity, or beating their dog, rather than the actions which we inaccurately speculate they may take based on some tea leaf divination?
This is a binary argument. You either can make NO assumptions about people or you must make EXTREME assumptions about people. In reality people make minor assumptions about people based upon observable facts. I wouldn't expect a person who plays Hatred to go murder a shopping mall, but I would expect people who murder shopping malls to likely enjoy Hatred. The amount of context we have on the people is important.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
So you're saying you never judge anyone by the media they enjoy? I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I mean shit I judge people on the sports teams they follow!
No? I might judge their taste in media.
Which is judging the person for the media they enjoy, now you're just talking past it. "Look I judge the media but not the people who enjoy it." Oh bullshit.
Except I mean it mainly in terms of if I will listen to their recommendation of something. Or if I am making a humorous exaggeration about how their support of Bayformers is making movies stupider or something.
So you're saying you never judge anyone by the media they enjoy? I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I mean shit I judge people on the sports teams they follow!
No? I might judge their taste in media.
Which is judging the person for the media they enjoy, now you're just talking past it. "Look I judge the media but not the people who enjoy it." Oh bullshit.
Except I mean it mainly in terms of if I will listen to their recommendation of something. Or if I am making a humorous exaggeration about how their support of Bayformers is making movies stupider or something.
Which means you're not only judging people but your taking action based on those judgements.
Posts
It was about corruption in short story journalism.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Can they do what they do? Yes. It's a consequence of the legal freedoms we enjoy that there will be assholes out there making terrible things. That doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade and judge them for their actions.
Everyone is accountable for what they choose to do in life. If you choose to play Hatred, I'm not going to automatically hate you but I will think you strange for funding such a game. If you post regularly about how it's the best game for reasons of it's mechanics but point out that the premise is severely disturbing and flawed, I probably won't care about it when assessing my opinions of you. If you go on about how it is the best game you've played and you want a sequel, I'd probably avoid speaking with you and think you a potential psychopath.
That said, I'm still really not sure about judging people on the video games they play, probably as a reaction to coming to maturity during the Jack Thompson debacles made the whole thing a sore subject, so I lack objectivity on that matter.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
If anything, due to the means of distribution games are less censured than other media because you can download them in private directly from source more often than not, making middle-man censorship (such as with film ratings or book sellers) a non-issue. Hatred, for example, could just sell direct from their own server infrastructure if they choose to (avoiding the need for Steam altogether). They might not sell as well, but there is no real requirement to use anyone else's distribution capabilities.
And there really isn't a sanctioning body that could effectively or permanently stop them from distributing the game to a willing audience unless ISPs start censuring content (which hasn't happened in most of the West).
Everything you wrote here has never been proven and rebutted though...
It's a weasel argument "likely" isn't the case there are a wide range of studies proving that false.
As for judging people by what they play... well I admit saying a witch hunt may have been exaggerating the point but it seems silly to me to judge people by what games they play I find it hard to understand that line of thought.
I mean shit I judge people on the sports teams they follow!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well...actually yeah I never really cared. Don't get me wrong if they ask my option on a game I think is terrible I will tell them so but beyond that no its not something I concern myself with.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I guess I would ask those who say they don't judge others by the media they consume if they believe Gone Home and Depression Quest and Candy Crush players hardcore gamers?
If not, how dare you judge people based off the games they play.
Primalight, judging doesn't necessarily mean saying "that person is terrible," it means to form a conclusion. When people do things you have points of reference about them from which you make conclusions. If I see someone playing an EA Sports football title, I would judge that person as being someone who liked sports. Similarly, when I see someone playing a game that is mostly senseless violence, I would assume that person likes senseless violence (because if they didn't like it, why would they be playing). If I'm given additional information, such as they are playing it to review it, or to see what the fuss is about, I have more information to reorient that information.
GTA is an interesting example. Because I know what that game is about and what the mechanics are I can't hugely draw too many conclusions about people who play that game due to the sandbox nature of it. While you can murder hookers you can also just drive around, or complete plot based quests for a narrative, or just play around with the physics engine. All are ways people play GTA. So while it has violent qualities, it's a bit harder to assess anything about someone playing it aside from the fact they are playing a AAA title. If they then say "well, I mostly play it to kill hookers and crash into the police" well then I'm going to make some additional assessments about that person.
To assume you wouldn't be judged for any action you take publicly, or for any information you share with other people, is more boggling in my mind.
In much the same way you can't tell me you haven't reacted negatively to someone liking something you don't like. Be it music, movies, games, or even clothing choices, at some point you have seen someone enjoy something you don't and thought less of them for it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No? I might judge their taste in media.
Which is judging the person for the media they enjoy, now you're just talking past it. "Look I judge the media but not the people who enjoy it." Oh bullshit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So... you can't tell anything from the fact that someone's a huge Ayn Rand fan?
I... I just assume they find that game fun. I never have drawn a conclusion past well I guess they just like that game.
I don't know maybe I am just weird but I don't attribute peoples tastes into media as that much of a straight link. The most I notice is if a person buys a certain genre or games of a certain difficulty what type of video game player they are but that is really it.
I honestly want to know is this a odd way to look at it? I never put any thought into it until now.
I know this is categorically false from your post history, as you have made all sorts of judgement on people base upon their religion (especially Islam) within the last month. Faith is just another form of media we esteem and consume, functionally there is no difference except to the degree in which we hold them in esteem.
If you see someone consumes right-wing political nonfiction for their media consumption, that tells you a lot of information without even going into personal bias (that they enjoy learning the opinions of others on political thought, are willing to pay for and spend time hearing political ideologies for a specific political spectrum, and if they are advocating to others reading it that they either very much support or very much disavow that political thought).
You don't, however, think "man has book" as the long and short of your assessment. Unless you have no critical thinking capability, anyway.
I put a hell of a lot more into someone claiming to be a part of a religion that teaches the whole "kill all non-believers holy war thing" .
I do put more stock into peoples political and religious beliefs then I do what they purchase for entertainment I see them as two different things rather them one shared. I don't for instance believe a person reading Harry Potter believes in magic.
I kinda see where you are coming from but you are trying to merge two different things together where I can not see them fitting. What you practice and believe in for everyday life is not equivalent to what you find entertaining in a movie.
What you practice and believe in every day life influences what you consume. It's not a stretch to say that you can find out a lot about someone from the media they consume.
I like playing Ratchet and Clank. Can you assume that I enjoy turning aliens into sheep?
You're drawing a connecting line between virtual representations of a thing and the thing itself that simply isn't there. If somebody is playing an EA sports game, I can't conclude that they like sports, I can only conclude that they like video games about sports. Personally, I find following sports teams to be boring and playing sports doesn't match my physical abilities, but video game sports canbe quite fun, because they remove the reasons I have for not playing in real life.
If somebody is playing a violent game, that doesn't mean they like violence, it means they like violent video games. I would never hurt anyone, because it's wrong and harmful and carries consequences and frankly cutting up bodies gets exhausting after a while. But video game violence is quite fun, because games remove the reasons I have for not hurting people in real life.
The experience of moving your thumbs and watching a screen is very different from stabbing a screaming, bleeding human being to death. Even if there's a screaming, bleeding virtual human being on the screen. There's no reason or logic behind judging people based on the morality of their entertainment--choosing the Evil alignment in Infamous does not make you evil, or any more likely than anybody else to acquire and abuse electric superpowers.
These aren't actions, they're thoughts. You're assuming thoughts lead to action, when in fact it's very common for people to have socially unacceptable impulses or fantaises that they don't act upon. I've certainly been frustrated enough at times to gleefully imagine killing whoever it is I'm angry with, but that doesn't make me a murderer or even abnormal.
If a society is to be free, its members must first and foremost be free within their own heads--free to have thoughts which go against that society's rules, so long as those thoughts do not translate into harmful actions... And even then, it is the actions which are worth condemning, not the thoughts which led to them.
I think this is really the main difference between video games and other forms of media, in terms of how it's treated.
Yes, it's true that video games are a more interactive medium than reading a comic book or listening to music or watching a film, but this didn't stop people and organizations from censoring and banning some of those. In my view, video games are simply going though the same social backlash that the older forms of entertainment have gone through.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
A person "reading Harry Potter" likely enjoys children's fiction and probably fantasy fiction. There is not logical connection between "reads a novel with witches and wizards" and "is not rooted reality." A person who is reading Harry Potter while wearing a hand-crafted Gryphondoor Outfit and has cut a scar into his forehead and is running around shouting the spells and pointing at people might lead me to think that assuming he has had some sort of disconnect assuming it isn't at a convention or other socially understandable context.
I kinda think you just try to read into people to much over something that doesn't really reveal a hell of a lot personally. You can rationalize it and just like cold readings you will be right some of the time given a large enough pool of people but I just can't really see a direct connection as you do.
What exactly does the book itself add to your judgment there? It's like, yeah, if I saw a guy shooting up his office and killing people while (somehow also) playing Hatred, I would think there's a problem there. Also if he wasn't playing Hatred. Really the game is the least important part of that scenario, don't you think?
I agree!
But that doesn't mean that, barring office murder or other more extreme examples of threatening or alarming behavior, that I wouldn't consider someone who was enthusiastic about a game like Hatred as being dangerous or creepy. Not in the same order of magnitude as someone actually doing terrible actions.
Making mind-gymnastics over what mental state a person is in for ordering a type of latte is pretty shaky.
Making an assumption over a guy ordering a latte asking for the word "Rape" to be spelled out in sprinkles while leering at the barrista is probably less shaky.
Not even close to saying someone is a shitty person from the simple act of consuming a type of media that is not the result of actual people being harmed in any way.
No, but I never said I would think someone is a shitty person for consuming a type of media. I would find someone laying Hatred creepy and avoid them, because the type of person who takes enjoyment in killing "innocents" by the game's own logic wouldn't be a person I would feel comfortable around.
What if a guy says "Man, I really like this painting" and it's Michelangelo's "Leda and the Swan"? Or "Man, I really like this movie" and it's Irreversible?
I don't know anything about the film so I don't have a frame of reference.
Its known for opening with a pretty horrible rape scene. But its not the only point of the movie, though someone who said they really like it without couching that in a shit ton of "For's" would raise up my "the fuck is wrong with you"
Much the same way when I tell people about the Walking dead I get into an entire discussion about how its hard to "enjoy" the show because its not entertaining its intriguing for the morality on display and the "What would you dos" it presents, but I'm sure there are fans for the ultra violence and the lawlessness.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Its possible for two people to watch Saving Private Ryan and have one like it for the emotional story it tells and another to like it because they got to see people blown into bits. The why is important! The problem here with a game like Hatred is that there arent diverging contexts as the game is advertised. There isn't a narrative designed to complicate the story or tell the emotional downfall that drives a person to eventually have no choices in life from his perspective but to harm others. It just gives you this:
They are specifically stating that there isn't a narrative beyond you are an angry person who wants to commit murder suicide. That's the context. That's all the context.
Sure, but that is a personal flaw of the judge, not the one who is judged. I'm not saying I haven't ever even momentarily judged someone for, say, using a controller for a PC FPS game, but that's my weird hangup, it doesn't mean I can, as some people have said, "go through my steam friendslist and figure out who is a shitty person," based on if I see a controller icon or whatever. Ditto for everything else.
Half this thread is people saying, "I cross the street if I see some 'urban youths'" and being high fived for it, not people saying, "I have too, but I really wish that wasn't how our society was."
Yes, and that's the problem. Given the choice between riding home with the person who has had 4 alcohol drinks in a half hour, and the guy who often crashes his car, both accidentally and on purpose, in GTA, who do you ride with?
This is either the "video games causes violence" argument, or maybe the reverse, of "well, only a sicko would like that game in the first place," both of which are, you know, factually untrue.
You're not entitled to an opinion which is provably wrong. We've already done this. Postal (and GTA, and Postal 2, and Doom, and etc.etc.) has already been released, and almost every person who played it neither had, nor will ever commit a serious violent crime.
Maybe, just maybe, we should judge people on the morally relevant actions that they actually take, like volunteering for charity, or beating their dog, rather than the actions which we inaccurately speculate they may take based on some tea leaf divination?
Except I mean it mainly in terms of if I will listen to their recommendation of something. Or if I am making a humorous exaggeration about how their support of Bayformers is making movies stupider or something.
Not really. You could like the books ironically or for their writing without agreeing with the ideology.
The context around any action or situation is vital to understanding and judging that situation. A person can enjoy a game because they think the violence is just slapstick nonsense or a satire of a genre. A person can enjoy a game because of the artwork or mechanics it presents. A person can enjoy a game because they hate people and want to hurt them. All of those are reasons to enjoy a game. And I will absolutely judge the last person as someone who is enjoying a game for terrible reasons and in need of help.
Neither, assuming I've never seen the other guy drive before. But then, I would ~also~ know that he somehow managed to get to the bar and to work and home most days by driving safely which would make me more likely to assume he just is bad at videogame driving than assuming his actual driving skills are bad. Unless he had a history of totally his real life car as well, in which case I would call a cab for all three of us or use my own car. Assumption folk make are aggregate, those example assumes you know nothing else beyond those two facts to draw upon which makes the entire situation pointless because if that's all you knew you wouldn't go with either.
This is a binary argument. You either can make NO assumptions about people or you must make EXTREME assumptions about people. In reality people make minor assumptions about people based upon observable facts. I wouldn't expect a person who plays Hatred to go murder a shopping mall, but I would expect people who murder shopping malls to likely enjoy Hatred. The amount of context we have on the people is important.
Which also tells you something.
Which means you're not only judging people but your taking action based on those judgements.
Which is okay.