Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
I was looking for a better thread to hawk this in but
I read this article in some news app and besides speaking about internet addiction in a thoughtful manner, it also introduces the concept of "simulation entrapment" (not evidence based) in video games
The concept in short is that needs we are blocked from pursuing in real life can be accomplished in the safe space of games, but this emulation is not perfect and will never satiate us as much as the real thing.
How this applies here are that video game things like having a job, being important to someone, mastering a skill, going on an adventure, being part of a team, seeing wonderful sights, being in love etc can all be performed in the real world if you're lucky - some people aren't lucky but it's possible. Some of those other needs, however, cannot be healthily represented in the real world. Like the need to defend yourself from damage to your self esteem by displacing your anger onto someone or something else, which is why we have those dartboards and punching bags and voodoo dolls with faces on them. Violent video games are an extension of that same concept - a simulated need that has no productive outlet in society. Some people really feel like killing somebody but don't know where or how to shove that emotion. Video games provide a place for that.
Of course, the other end of simulation entrapment is that as it is only a pale imitation of the actual solution to your needs, you quickly tire of it and seek better and better simulations approaching reality. That's probably how we've come here, where we seek destructive and ugly stimuli because we had a destructive and ugly sentiment. It feels more real to the brain than sugarcoated bloodless and blameless murder. That's perversely where the good news comes in, because if this phenomenon turns intelligent and productive people into MMO zombies then it should lock those who aren't able to maturely handle conflict and primal urges in the real world inside their own simulated prison. Turning a violent video game enthusiast into a killer should be as hard as getting Eve player to give up a Titan.
But that really begs the question: if video games are not an escape but a fulfillment of unfulfillable needs, then why are those needs unfulfillable? What support do we as society really offer people who really feel this negative rage and frustration that causes them to fall into hyper-realistic whack-a-mole? Who really wants to deal with this crap instead of just defriending anybody that takes a dip in the tar?
Anyway violence in video games is complicated
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
Cahiers: There is a good deal of blood in Pierrot.
Godard: Not blood, red.
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
Cahiers: There is a good deal of blood in Pierrot.
Godard: Not blood, red.
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Agreed. Honestly, as a TLDR to this entire thread: Fiction isn't real.
We don't call someone a hero for playing full Paragon Shepard through all three Mass Effects, and actually put them on CNN, and give them a real life medal, and shake their hands if we see them in public. And yet, as soon as someone does something "evil" in a video game, everyone is out to actually pretend that matters somehow, and retire to their fainting couches.
If someone could sway your mind when considering, say, a business loan, or a sitter for your kids by saying they got the good ending in Fable 3, then, well, god damn, but if not, stop being a hypocrite.
There's also the fundamental escapism in video game violence. You can kill enemies, they can kill you, and when the game ends, none of it matters. As long as you're playing a game, you can pretend that death is a thing that you can master, not something that will inevitably unmake you regardless of how well you live your life.
It's funny because it would be very easy to make a game that was identical to hatred, but slightly more slapstick. If you want to talk mass murder simulators strictly speaking I've played a tonne of those, but generally they have a kind of tongue in cheek aspect to them (I.e carmaggeddon, the original GTA, saints row, hotline Miami or postal)
Part of the reason people have strong reactions against it is he absolute po faced "yes this is just a game about killing people brutally" grey filter nature of the tone. There's no joke.
Agreed. Honestly, as a TLDR to this entire thread: Fiction isn't real.
We don't call someone a hero for playing full Paragon Shepard through all three Mass Effects, and actually put them on CNN, and give them a real life medal, and shake their hands if we see them in public. And yet, as soon as someone does something "evil" in a video game, everyone is out to actually pretend that matters somehow, and retire to their fainting couches.
If someone could sway your mind when considering, say, a business loan, or a sitter for your kids by saying they got the good ending in Fable 3, then, well, god damn, but if not, stop being a hypocrite.
Fiction isn't real. But the person consuming it and their reasons for consuming it are very real.
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.
It's funny because it would be very easy to make a game that was identical to hatred, but slightly more slapstick. If you want to talk mass murder simulators strictly speaking I've played a tonne of those, but generally they have a kind of tongue in cheek aspect to them (I.e carmaggeddon, the original GTA, saints row, hotline Miami or postal)
Part of the reason people have strong reactions against it is he absolute po faced "yes this is just a game about killing people brutally" grey filter nature of the tone. There's no joke.
I never played it but I think State of Emergency would be slapstick, what with it being colorful and shooting civilians in just the right way meant their heads could be blown clean off their shoulders.
Couldn't it be argued that games like GTA trivialize violence while Hatred shows the ugly truth?
It can be argued that any piece of media, fiction or not, trivialises violence. Bugs Bunny. American Sniper. Lord of the Rings. Bullitt. The Sopranos. The Bayeux Tapestry. Conflict Equals Drama and sometimes that's taken literally. There were people that argued all those WW2 FPS games trivialised the experience of all those veterans from 'the Greatest Generation' by making it seem easy.
But, there's a reason why we consume more fictionalised accounts of violence rather than, say, Faces of Death or something. We don't really want the ugly truth.
Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
Cahiers: There is a good deal of blood in Pierrot.
Godard: Not blood, red.
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Don't be obtuse.
If your parents wrote a short story about murdering you and torturing you, and your siblings loved it, would that be fine?
BUT IT'S NOT REAL!!!
Fiction is really written by real people and really consumed by real people. It can tell you something about the person who made it and the person who enjoys it.
Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
Cahiers: There is a good deal of blood in Pierrot.
Godard: Not blood, red.
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Don't be obtuse.
If your parents wrote a short story about murdering you and torturing you, and your siblings loved it, would that be fine?
BUT IT'S NOT REAL!!!
Fiction is really written by real people and really consumed by real people. It can tell you something about the person who made it and the person who enjoys it.
Here is the problem with your statement...
It is factually incorrect on nearly every conceivable level. In fact this entire argument has been debunked so many times it feels as though it is a yearly event like a Christmas special.
I want you to google someone named Jack Tompson he went on the same crusade to white wash and bubble wrap the world and he is for the most part regarded as a utter fool. There has been study after study proving there is no link between violent video games and actual violence.
I don't really understand why it keeps getting brought up fantasy is fantasy and reality and reality if you have a problem telling the two apart seek help not attention.
For the topic on hand is anyone else tried of how fashionable being offended is now a days? What ever happened to if you just don't like something just don't buy it rather then going with the whole Fahrenheit 451 book burning mentality?
Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
Cahiers: There is a good deal of blood in Pierrot.
Godard: Not blood, red.
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Don't be obtuse.
If your parents wrote a short story about murdering you and torturing you, and your siblings loved it, would that be fine?
BUT IT'S NOT REAL!!!
Fiction is really written by real people and really consumed by real people. It can tell you something about the person who made it and the person who enjoys it.
Here is the problem with your statement...
It is factually incorrect on nearly every conceivable level. In fact this entire argument has been debunked so many times it feels as though it is a yearly event like a Christmas special.
I want you to google someone named Jack Tompson he went on the same crusade to white wash and bubble wrap the world and he is for the most part regarded as a utter fool. There has been study after study proving there is no link between violent video games and actual violence.
I don't really understand why it keeps getting brought up fantasy is fantasy and reality and reality if you have a problem telling the two apart seek help not attention.
For the topic on hand is anyone else tried of how fashionable being offended is now a days? What ever happened to if you just don't like something just don't buy it rather then going with the whole Fahrenheit 451 book burning mentality?
I'm not talking about Jack Thompson or the 'violent media causes violent behaviour' idea.
Are you even bothering to read posts and think about them before posting?
Couldn't it be argued that games like GTA trivialize violence while Hatred shows the ugly truth?
It can be argued that any piece of media, fiction or not, trivialises violence. Bugs Bunny. American Sniper. Lord of the Rings. Bullitt. The Sopranos. The Bayeux Tapestry. Conflict Equals Drama and sometimes that's taken literally. There were people that argued all those WW2 FPS games trivialised the experience of all those veterans from 'the Greatest Generation' by making it seem easy.
But, there's a reason why we consume more fictionalised accounts of violence rather than, say, Faces of Death or something. We don't really want the ugly truth.
This makes me wonder, then, what is the point where fictional violence becomes too real? When does interactive depictions of violence go from enjoyable escapism to disgusting brutality? Most people here seem to give GTA a pass, but many non-gamers don't because it looks worse than it plays. Could playing Hatred give a similar experience?
Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
Cahiers: There is a good deal of blood in Pierrot.
Godard: Not blood, red.
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Don't be obtuse.
If your parents wrote a short story about murdering you and torturing you, and your siblings loved it, would that be fine?
BUT IT'S NOT REAL!!!
Fiction is really written by real people and really consumed by real people. It can tell you something about the person who made it and the person who enjoys it.
Here is the problem with your statement...
It is factually incorrect on nearly every conceivable level. In fact this entire argument has been debunked so many times it feels as though it is a yearly event like a Christmas special.
I want you to google someone named Jack Tompson he went on the same crusade to white wash and bubble wrap the world and he is for the most part regarded as a utter fool. There has been study after study proving there is no link between violent video games and actual violence.
I don't really understand why it keeps getting brought up fantasy is fantasy and reality and reality if you have a problem telling the two apart seek help not attention.
For the topic on hand is anyone else tried of how fashionable being offended is now a days? What ever happened to if you just don't like something just don't buy it rather then going with the whole Fahrenheit 451 book burning mentality?
I'm not talking about Jack Thompson or the 'violent media causes violent behaviour' idea.
Are you even bothering to read posts and think about them before posting?
For a cat who just said "Don't be obtuse." you sure are being obtuse. I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs, that doesn't mean I'm going to rob a jewelry store and torture a cop.
Well if the game ever does get a release it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Does this go for any violent game?
In which you are a psycopath murdering screaming civilians begging for their lives? yes. So anyone who has postal or the like.
So it isn't the violence but the portrayal of the virtual victims begging for their lives?
Yes. If you enjoy a game where committing extreme violence, for no reason, against innocent people who are begging for their lives, crying, pleading, is the whole game, you're probably a shitty person.
Just like of you enjoy a flash game about killing someone you don't agree with you're also probably a shitty person.
But it's not real. Which cuts both ways, to me--if vicarious enjoyment of fictional violence is wrong, then I don't see how any "reasons" for that violence or any characterization of the victims could change that, because it's all equally (and deliberately) invented. I mean, is it okay to enjoy the mass murder in Uncharted because Drake really, really wants the treasure? Or because they shot first? (I mean, we had people today in the movie thread arguing that it's wrong for actual soldiers in actual wars to enjoy killing the enemy.) Is it okay to enjoy a slasher movie, or a gory action film? Either people should be judged on their emotional reactions to simulated violence or they shouldn't be, but if you're going to do it, you should be indicting as shitty a much wider swath of the population than just the people who will like Hatred.
Context does matter.
And what makes the context different between a mass shooting and a terrorist bombing?
Are people playing Counter Strike reprehensible if they play as T because they are simulating a terrorist attack?
I have friends that were blown up and lost limbs to IEDs, does that mean it's ok for me to label someone as a shitty person that plays Insurgency and they use IEDs to kill the other team?
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
Cahiers: There is a good deal of blood in Pierrot.
Godard: Not blood, red.
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Don't be obtuse.
If your parents wrote a short story about murdering you and torturing you, and your siblings loved it, would that be fine?
BUT IT'S NOT REAL!!!
Fiction is really written by real people and really consumed by real people. It can tell you something about the person who made it and the person who enjoys it.
Here is the problem with your statement...
It is factually incorrect on nearly every conceivable level. In fact this entire argument has been debunked so many times it feels as though it is a yearly event like a Christmas special.
I want you to google someone named Jack Tompson he went on the same crusade to white wash and bubble wrap the world and he is for the most part regarded as a utter fool. There has been study after study proving there is no link between violent video games and actual violence.
I don't really understand why it keeps getting brought up fantasy is fantasy and reality and reality if you have a problem telling the two apart seek help not attention.
For the topic on hand is anyone else tried of how fashionable being offended is now a days? What ever happened to if you just don't like something just don't buy it rather then going with the whole Fahrenheit 451 book burning mentality?
I'm not talking about Jack Thompson or the 'violent media causes violent behaviour' idea.
Are you even bothering to read posts and think about them before posting?
I have though perhaps I misunderstood it?
Your post was begging the question that you can make informed assumptions about a audience based on what content it consumes was it not?
primallight on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
Couldn't it be argued that games like GTA trivialize violence while Hatred shows the ugly truth?
It can be argued that any piece of media, fiction or not, trivialises violence. Bugs Bunny. American Sniper. Lord of the Rings. Bullitt. The Sopranos. The Bayeux Tapestry. Conflict Equals Drama and sometimes that's taken literally. There were people that argued all those WW2 FPS games trivialised the experience of all those veterans from 'the Greatest Generation' by making it seem easy.
But, there's a reason why we consume more fictionalised accounts of violence rather than, say, Faces of Death or something. We don't really want the ugly truth.
This makes me wonder, then, what is the point where fictional violence becomes too real? When does interactive depictions of violence go from enjoyable escapism to disgusting brutality? Most people here seem to give GTA a pass, but many non-gamers don't because it looks worse than it plays. Could playing Hatred give a similar experience?
In this day and age you can watch criminals be arrested on Cops. Executions on news shows (granted you can argue that is informative not entertainment) and watch real war footage at nearly any hour.
I would argue that claiming to having strong objections to fictionalized violence seems to nearly be jumping the shark considering how much real violence and death is available for viewing.
What we have here is a small minority whining that something has offended them.
@CaptainNemo
I do most days and to be honest I think the first time I did I officially became "old"
I see a new generation that is strangely comfortable sprouting the most racist nonsense imagine-able so long as it is targeted at whites...
I see groups of people who instead of being amazed at a miracle of science happening are enraged about what shirt said man wore...
The world has changed to be honest I am not certain it is for the better. When did we all start to want censorship?
I never cared about video games being a art and to be honest I don't think I ever will I only care about them being fun but I have to beg the question to those who do want games to be art.
Can something be art if it never offends or challenges you in anyway shape or form?
primallight on
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
If your parents wrote a short story about murdering you and torturing you, and your siblings loved it, would that be fine?
Ok, I'll bite. What is the storyline? What is the genre? Who is the protagonist? Who is the antagonist? Is this a story about "You" attempting to escape from evil parents out to kill you and failing? Is it a story about the "Parent" snapping and being driven to kill their child? Are they doing it arbitrarily? Or are there contextual reasons driving them to do horrific things to prevent even more horrific things from occurring? Is the overall message nothing but "hey, we killed our kid! Edgy!" or is there something in there about the futility of life or the cruelty of common circumstance?
Beyond that, why do the siblings like it? Is it because "You" died? Or is it for other reasons?
I have read a bunch of short stories and novels that grapple with parents dealing with Sophie's choices over the years and very few were tasteless or just doing it to show wanton cruelty for no purpose. Even if such a rediculously straw man work of fiction were produced, who would be the audience? Why would it be produced? And who would sell it? Who would buy it? And who would potentially go to jail for conspiracy (assuming this story drove a parent to actually kill "you?"
Even in this wonky argument there is an entire rabbit hole to go down on context that determines what is and is not socially appropriate. Hatred, for example, is self reported as:
In Hatred, a shooter video game presented in isometric perspective,[2] the player-character is a mass-killing villain who hates humanity and begins a "genocide crusade"[2] to kill innocent civilians and police officers.[6] He can use these individuals as human shields.[2]
while, say, Metal Gear Solid does many of the same mechanics (murder, shooting, human shields) and is self described as:
Metal Gear Solid follows Solid Snake, a soldier who infiltrates a nuclear weapons facility to neutralize the terrorist threat from FOXHOUND, a renegade special forces unit.[5] Snake must liberate two hostages, the head of DARPA and the president of a major arms manufacturer, confront the terrorists, and stop them from launching a nuclear strike.[6] Cinematic cutscenes were rendered using the in-game engine and graphics, and voice acting was used throughout the entire game.[7]
Contextually these two concepts are extremely different. In the former, the point of the game is to literally kill for reasons of hate without narrative or purpose. For the latter, murder may occur but is not the specific purpose of narrative or gameplay, but instead functions as an elective choice or consequence as situations are presented in the story.
The way I see it, everything will be offensive to at least someone, no matter how innocuous. If that Elmo sounds even vaguely like it's saying Islam is the Light, well, someone somewhere will see the end of civilization. Hell, I remember a Nazi getting offended when offered a copy of Lolita to read while in prison.
This is not to say I support Hatred, but I do support it's right to exist. Steam doesn't have to carry it, because Steam is it's own company. But acting as though you can judge people by the media they consume is idiotic. Am I a bad person for loving Dr. Strangelove or the works of Tarantino?
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Not sure how Dr. Strangelove or Tarantino films would fall under an equivalent category as the former is decrying and satirizing the MAD concept and the latter are rarely glorifying or encouraging violent material in the films but instead are using them as narrative devices for a more complicated plot.
Hatred is literally making a game with the purpose of giving players a toolkit to go on a murderous rampage while getting rewarded for killing innocent and authority targets without narrative or provocation.
Does that mean it needs to be censured? No. But would I judge someone who played that game and talked about it? Hell yes I would.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Easy Questions.
But here's the rub. There are very few things that are uniformly offensive to people. Portrayals of positive gay relationships are highly offensive to millions of people, but art can and does show them. Art exists as content that provokes an emotional response, and some people will always respond with a strongly negative reaction to something.
Not sure how Dr. Strangelove or Tarantino films would fall under an equivalent category as the former is decrying and satirizing the MAD concept and the latter are rarely glorifying or encouraging violent material in the films but instead are using them as narrative devices for a more complicated plot.
Hatred is literally making a game with the purpose of giving players a toolkit to go on a murderous rampage while getting rewarded for killing innocent and authority targets without narrative or provocation.
Does that mean it needs to be censured? No. But would I judge someone who played that game and talked about it? Hell yes I would.
I do partially agree with this, after all, I'd side-eye someone who played Racial Holy War. On the other hand, there are plenty of contexts where I could understand playing Hatred. Reviews, in-depth articles, curiosity at how awful that is, that sort of thing. I think you can consume media with supporting whats in it, or the creators of the media. That said, a rabid fan of something like Hatred would seem like the kind of person I wouldn't want to spend all that much time around.
Not sure how Dr. Strangelove or Tarantino films would fall under an equivalent category as the former is decrying and satirizing the MAD concept and the latter are rarely glorifying or encouraging violent material in the films but instead are using them as narrative devices for a more complicated plot.
Hatred is literally making a game with the purpose of giving players a toolkit to go on a murderous rampage while getting rewarded for killing innocent and authority targets without narrative or provocation.
Does that mean it needs to be censured? No. But would I judge someone who played that game and talked about it? Hell yes I would.
...
....
.....
I want you to google "witch hunt"
Then I would like you to try and explain how that is fundamentally different then what you just posted if you could please?
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Easy Questions.
But here's the rub. There are very few things that are uniformly offensive to people. Portrayals of positive gay relationships are highly offensive to millions of people, but art can and does show them. Art exists as content that provokes an emotional response, and some people will always respond with a strongly negative reaction to something.
That's a false equivalence. Some things are generally considered to be legal in art but tasteless and tacky. Senseless, context-less murder is pretty universally thought of by all cultures as something not good. That is sort of a corner of what civilization is. If you cannot grasp the difference between "glorifying the murder spree" and "gay relationships" then that says a lot more about you than the nature of the argument here.
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?
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
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Easy Questions.
But here's the rub. There are very few things that are uniformly offensive to people. Portrayals of positive gay relationships are highly offensive to millions of people, but art can and does show them. Art exists as content that provokes an emotional response, and some people will always respond with a strongly negative reaction to something.
That's a false equivalence. Some things are generally considered to be legal in art but tasteless and tacky. Senseless, context-less murder is pretty universally thought of by all cultures as something not good. That is sort of a corner of what civilization is. If you cannot grasp the difference between "glorifying the murder spree" and "gay relationships" then that says a lot more about you than the nature of the argument here.
Boy, good thing I didn't say that, huh?
Millions of people find content with gay people incredibly offensive and not good. And that's terrible and stupid. But these people can and do find such things offensive. I argued a similar point in the Charlie Hebdo thread. Being offensive doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it pisses someone off.
Does Hatred look like a fantastic work of heart, a grand work of the ages? No. Does Steam have to carry it? Nope. How much interest do I have in playing it? Nada. But offense, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's shit, mind you, but offensive content still has a right to exist.
Not sure how Dr. Strangelove or Tarantino films would fall under an equivalent category as the former is decrying and satirizing the MAD concept and the latter are rarely glorifying or encouraging violent material in the films but instead are using them as narrative devices for a more complicated plot.
Hatred is literally making a game with the purpose of giving players a toolkit to go on a murderous rampage while getting rewarded for killing innocent and authority targets without narrative or provocation.
Does that mean it needs to be censured? No. But would I judge someone who played that game and talked about it? Hell yes I would.
...
....
.....
I want you to google "witch hunt"
Then I would like you to try and explain how that is fundamentally different then what you just posted if you could please?
Am I supposed to be looking at the general idea of a "Witch Hunt" or one of the three films or seven televisions show, or the songs with that title, or...
If it's the idea of an actual witch hunt: there is a pretty substantial difference between judging someone on the actions they take and then taking worse actions yourself. I can choose to avoid or use my legally sanctioned free speech to point out that people consuming a media that glorifies context-less murder are probably not great people without stringing them up and setting them on fire. One if being a rational and reasonable person. The other is being no different than the people you are judging.
Censureship goes both ways, you know. Just as I don't think Hatred should be censured because that would be stupid, that doesn't guarantee them an audience or freedom from being judged for their actions by the audiences they are attempting to gain. Making what I said the same as a witch hunt would be Rush Limbaugh level of logic, or the "I can talk and you have to listen, but if you don't agree and say so ITS CENSURESHIP!" nonsense.
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?
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?
Posts
Again, hatred is designed to celebrate mass murder or at least make waves by presenting itself like it does.
Is CS designed to celebrate terrorism, or does it use terrorism as a scenario for a team based multiplayer game? Is the tone celebratory of terrorism, or is it just backdrop for the game?
Tone is context. Context matters.
One treats the killing of innocents as not only serious but also awesome, while the other is just a backdrop.
Seriously, it's all about the context. Not only in the game itself, but also the presentation of that game to consumers.
Has there ever been a counterstrike trailer that goes "look how edgy this terrorism is, I'm going to kill all these asshole hostages and soldiers because YEEEEEAH"? Because if so I wouldn't be cool with counterstrike or people who play it.
Do you really not see a difference here?
I read this article in some news app and besides speaking about internet addiction in a thoughtful manner, it also introduces the concept of "simulation entrapment" (not evidence based) in video games
The concept in short is that needs we are blocked from pursuing in real life can be accomplished in the safe space of games, but this emulation is not perfect and will never satiate us as much as the real thing.
How this applies here are that video game things like having a job, being important to someone, mastering a skill, going on an adventure, being part of a team, seeing wonderful sights, being in love etc can all be performed in the real world if you're lucky - some people aren't lucky but it's possible. Some of those other needs, however, cannot be healthily represented in the real world. Like the need to defend yourself from damage to your self esteem by displacing your anger onto someone or something else, which is why we have those dartboards and punching bags and voodoo dolls with faces on them. Violent video games are an extension of that same concept - a simulated need that has no productive outlet in society. Some people really feel like killing somebody but don't know where or how to shove that emotion. Video games provide a place for that.
Of course, the other end of simulation entrapment is that as it is only a pale imitation of the actual solution to your needs, you quickly tire of it and seek better and better simulations approaching reality. That's probably how we've come here, where we seek destructive and ugly stimuli because we had a destructive and ugly sentiment. It feels more real to the brain than sugarcoated bloodless and blameless murder. That's perversely where the good news comes in, because if this phenomenon turns intelligent and productive people into MMO zombies then it should lock those who aren't able to maturely handle conflict and primal urges in the real world inside their own simulated prison. Turning a violent video game enthusiast into a killer should be as hard as getting Eve player to give up a Titan.
But that really begs the question: if video games are not an escape but a fulfillment of unfulfillable needs, then why are those needs unfulfillable? What support do we as society really offer people who really feel this negative rage and frustration that causes them to fall into hyper-realistic whack-a-mole? Who really wants to deal with this crap instead of just defriending anybody that takes a dip in the tar?
Anyway violence in video games is complicated
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why does the nature of my enjoyment rest on the intention of the developers (or, apparently, even the marketers)? Schindler's List was made with the best of intentions, but does that mean my thoughts are pure while watching even if all I'm doing is masturbating to the nude scenes? Then why should the reverse be true--that if the developers mean to make something atrociously immoral, I can't find healthy enjoyment in it without being a bad person?
I don't hold with your arguments--I'm with Godard, here, talking about Pierrot le fou:
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. There are violent works of art which are very sad, and whose violence is upsetting rather than viscerally entertaining; then you can say, "I didn't like the violence, I liked the story and the violence made me feel bad." But to say that it is fine to say, "Sure, I liked the violence, but I also learned an important lesson about racism" or "Sure, I got physically aroused when he pistol whipped that dude, but that part was really just the background to our team sport" is just you trying to come up with arbitrary reasons why Hatred stands alone.
Agreed. Honestly, as a TLDR to this entire thread: Fiction isn't real.
We don't call someone a hero for playing full Paragon Shepard through all three Mass Effects, and actually put them on CNN, and give them a real life medal, and shake their hands if we see them in public. And yet, as soon as someone does something "evil" in a video game, everyone is out to actually pretend that matters somehow, and retire to their fainting couches.
If someone could sway your mind when considering, say, a business loan, or a sitter for your kids by saying they got the good ending in Fable 3, then, well, god damn, but if not, stop being a hypocrite.
There's also the fundamental escapism in video game violence. You can kill enemies, they can kill you, and when the game ends, none of it matters. As long as you're playing a game, you can pretend that death is a thing that you can master, not something that will inevitably unmake you regardless of how well you live your life.
Part of the reason people have strong reactions against it is he absolute po faced "yes this is just a game about killing people brutally" grey filter nature of the tone. There's no joke.
Fiction isn't real. But the person consuming it and their reasons for consuming it are very real.
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.
I never played it but I think State of Emergency would be slapstick, what with it being colorful and shooting civilians in just the right way meant their heads could be blown clean off their shoulders.
It can be argued that any piece of media, fiction or not, trivialises violence. Bugs Bunny. American Sniper. Lord of the Rings. Bullitt. The Sopranos. The Bayeux Tapestry. Conflict Equals Drama and sometimes that's taken literally. There were people that argued all those WW2 FPS games trivialised the experience of all those veterans from 'the Greatest Generation' by making it seem easy.
But, there's a reason why we consume more fictionalised accounts of violence rather than, say, Faces of Death or something. We don't really want the ugly truth.
Don't be obtuse.
If your parents wrote a short story about murdering you and torturing you, and your siblings loved it, would that be fine?
BUT IT'S NOT REAL!!!
Fiction is really written by real people and really consumed by real people. It can tell you something about the person who made it and the person who enjoys it.
Here is the problem with your statement...
It is factually incorrect on nearly every conceivable level. In fact this entire argument has been debunked so many times it feels as though it is a yearly event like a Christmas special.
I want you to google someone named Jack Tompson he went on the same crusade to white wash and bubble wrap the world and he is for the most part regarded as a utter fool. There has been study after study proving there is no link between violent video games and actual violence.
I don't really understand why it keeps getting brought up fantasy is fantasy and reality and reality if you have a problem telling the two apart seek help not attention.
For the topic on hand is anyone else tried of how fashionable being offended is now a days? What ever happened to if you just don't like something just don't buy it rather then going with the whole Fahrenheit 451 book burning mentality?
I'm not talking about Jack Thompson or the 'violent media causes violent behaviour' idea.
Are you even bothering to read posts and think about them before posting?
This makes me wonder, then, what is the point where fictional violence becomes too real? When does interactive depictions of violence go from enjoyable escapism to disgusting brutality? Most people here seem to give GTA a pass, but many non-gamers don't because it looks worse than it plays. Could playing Hatred give a similar experience?
For a cat who just said "Don't be obtuse." you sure are being obtuse. I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs, that doesn't mean I'm going to rob a jewelry store and torture a cop.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I have though perhaps I misunderstood it?
Your post was begging the question that you can make informed assumptions about a audience based on what content it consumes was it not?
But why does the context matter here? You can't just keep saying "context!" without providing an actual reason as to why it matters.
It's like you guys are arguing with your dad in your heads.
In this day and age you can watch criminals be arrested on Cops. Executions on news shows (granted you can argue that is informative not entertainment) and watch real war footage at nearly any hour.
I would argue that claiming to having strong objections to fictionalized violence seems to nearly be jumping the shark considering how much real violence and death is available for viewing.
What we have here is a small minority whining that something has offended them.
Your context of parents writing a short story about killing their child was context for...
What, exactly?
Also, that makes two posts about familial strife from you. That offends me. I shall faint from the vapors.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
What context?
That someone writing a story about killing one of there children would worry that child?
You made a extremely flimsy straw man I took delight in tearing apart not a example of the topic being talked about.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I do most days and to be honest I think the first time I did I officially became "old"
I see a new generation that is strangely comfortable sprouting the most racist nonsense imagine-able so long as it is targeted at whites...
I see groups of people who instead of being amazed at a miracle of science happening are enraged about what shirt said man wore...
The world has changed to be honest I am not certain it is for the better. When did we all start to want censorship?
I never cared about video games being a art and to be honest I don't think I ever will I only care about them being fun but I have to beg the question to those who do want games to be art.
Can something be art if it never offends or challenges you in anyway shape or form?
Ok, I'll bite. What is the storyline? What is the genre? Who is the protagonist? Who is the antagonist? Is this a story about "You" attempting to escape from evil parents out to kill you and failing? Is it a story about the "Parent" snapping and being driven to kill their child? Are they doing it arbitrarily? Or are there contextual reasons driving them to do horrific things to prevent even more horrific things from occurring? Is the overall message nothing but "hey, we killed our kid! Edgy!" or is there something in there about the futility of life or the cruelty of common circumstance?
Beyond that, why do the siblings like it? Is it because "You" died? Or is it for other reasons?
I have read a bunch of short stories and novels that grapple with parents dealing with Sophie's choices over the years and very few were tasteless or just doing it to show wanton cruelty for no purpose. Even if such a rediculously straw man work of fiction were produced, who would be the audience? Why would it be produced? And who would sell it? Who would buy it? And who would potentially go to jail for conspiracy (assuming this story drove a parent to actually kill "you?"
Even in this wonky argument there is an entire rabbit hole to go down on context that determines what is and is not socially appropriate. Hatred, for example, is self reported as:
while, say, Metal Gear Solid does many of the same mechanics (murder, shooting, human shields) and is self described as:
Contextually these two concepts are extremely different. In the former, the point of the game is to literally kill for reasons of hate without narrative or purpose. For the latter, murder may occur but is not the specific purpose of narrative or gameplay, but instead functions as an elective choice or consequence as situations are presented in the story.
Context is everything.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Easy Questions.
This is not to say I support Hatred, but I do support it's right to exist. Steam doesn't have to carry it, because Steam is it's own company. But acting as though you can judge people by the media they consume is idiotic. Am I a bad person for loving Dr. Strangelove or the works of Tarantino?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Hatred is literally making a game with the purpose of giving players a toolkit to go on a murderous rampage while getting rewarded for killing innocent and authority targets without narrative or provocation.
Does that mean it needs to be censured? No. But would I judge someone who played that game and talked about it? Hell yes I would.
But here's the rub. There are very few things that are uniformly offensive to people. Portrayals of positive gay relationships are highly offensive to millions of people, but art can and does show them. Art exists as content that provokes an emotional response, and some people will always respond with a strongly negative reaction to something.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
All art does not have to be high art.
I do partially agree with this, after all, I'd side-eye someone who played Racial Holy War. On the other hand, there are plenty of contexts where I could understand playing Hatred. Reviews, in-depth articles, curiosity at how awful that is, that sort of thing. I think you can consume media with supporting whats in it, or the creators of the media. That said, a rabid fan of something like Hatred would seem like the kind of person I wouldn't want to spend all that much time around.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
does hatred have a right to exist
yes
should it exist
probably not
should the government censor it
no
is it okay if steam bans it
yes
what is even the subject of discussion
...
....
.....
I want you to google "witch hunt"
Then I would like you to try and explain how that is fundamentally different then what you just posted if you could please?
That's a false equivalence. Some things are generally considered to be legal in art but tasteless and tacky. Senseless, context-less murder is pretty universally thought of by all cultures as something not good. That is sort of a corner of what civilization is. If you cannot grasp the difference between "glorifying the murder spree" and "gay relationships" then that says a lot more about you than the nature of the argument here.
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?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
maybe, maybe and a masterpiece, in that order
neither of those first two questions are answerable in the absolute
Boy, good thing I didn't say that, huh?
Millions of people find content with gay people incredibly offensive and not good. And that's terrible and stupid. But these people can and do find such things offensive. I argued a similar point in the Charlie Hebdo thread. Being offensive doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it pisses someone off.
Does Hatred look like a fantastic work of heart, a grand work of the ages? No. Does Steam have to carry it? Nope. How much interest do I have in playing it? Nada. But offense, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's shit, mind you, but offensive content still has a right to exist.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Am I supposed to be looking at the general idea of a "Witch Hunt" or one of the three films or seven televisions show, or the songs with that title, or...
If it's the idea of an actual witch hunt: there is a pretty substantial difference between judging someone on the actions they take and then taking worse actions yourself. I can choose to avoid or use my legally sanctioned free speech to point out that people consuming a media that glorifies context-less murder are probably not great people without stringing them up and setting them on fire. One if being a rational and reasonable person. The other is being no different than the people you are judging.
Censureship goes both ways, you know. Just as I don't think Hatred should be censured because that would be stupid, that doesn't guarantee them an audience or freedom from being judged for their actions by the audiences they are attempting to gain. Making what I said the same as a witch hunt would be Rush Limbaugh level of logic, or the "I can talk and you have to listen, but if you don't agree and say so ITS CENSURESHIP!" nonsense.
Well shit, if it's a masterpiece why isn't it on Steam?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
it was witch hunted by social justice warriors