If you don't like swearing, don't read this.
If you don't/can't understand/like/reason-with/let by others own opinions, fuck off (I did say...)
I've been reading alot recently about some dumb fucks who want to have all games containing any and all types of violence removed from the shelves and banned into illegality. This includes swearing. My point of view on this is quite simply: Fuck. Off. Away. Now.
Computer games do not make me violent. Angry or upset at times, when a difficult bit is presented, but nothing amounts to physical violence to anything. What does make me angry enough to punch someone in the face are idiotic fools like those in the organisation entitled 'Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence' (MAVAV). And Hillery Clinton. MAVAV and the like? To me they appear to be in one of three groups.
Group 1: bunch of 'tarded parents who cannot control their children and give much needed discipline. IE: Bad Parents.
Group 2: Those Mothers/parents who are overly protective and paranoid about their childs safety. IE: Bad parents.
Group 3: Those who are actually genuinly worried about the topic of videogames causing violence. But, alas, cannot see the forest for the trees. Can't see that their course of action might actually make things worse. Ban games, and you get quite a few redundancies, which could lead to all sorts, but that's quite possibly for another discussion.
OK, so there is evidence that computer games can be bad for you, especially concerning the addictiveness of many. We can thank our Korean friends who have 'gamed' themselves to death for this information.
But is banning games the answer? What is the point in taking away something that so many enjoy? It is, after all, pixilated violence. A collection of pre-determined patterns upon a computer screen, which appear/shift/diseappear/change according to the input of the user.
If these people are so concerned with what computer games are doing to the psychology of 'youths' today and in the future, I for one think they should do some actual proper real research for a few years before jumping to conclusions. You know, is it actually computer games?
What kind of society would we live in if everyone did that? ...
"Oh no! My son was playing Scrabble, then he went out and fell off a bridge!!! SCRABBLE CAUSES SUICIDE! BAN IT!" I think not...but you know, there is always someone willing to jump on the band-wagon with them...
My opinion? If someone wants to kill themselves doing what they enjoy, as long as it doesn't harm others, more power to them. One less person in this over-crowded world (maybe a bit harsh, but it's been a bad day.) But now that I've had a small amount of time while writing this to think about it, Children are more erm...'open', for want of a better word, to ideas and the differences between right and wrong. They don't understand it yet, so they are not amoral - Giving a game like Grand Theft Auto to a child of 2-4 is quite possibly a really bad idea, especially if the parent is not hammering home that what is going on in the game is wrong.
Again though, back in the golden days right up until now, in the gaming industry, I can't see any games that would confuse a child between the differences between the game and reality. I see films as more of a culprit, as it involves real people, and real violence (as far as the childs eye can tell). So, if they show it on the tele, mummy, it's OK? But with all the new graphical advancements in games and reaching new heights of realism, soon games will be just as bad as the films
So, instead of saying "Well, games might be causing all these problems so let's get rid of them all completely. There, problem solved. Let's go have lunch." they could, and in my opinion should, be saying "Well, if it is affecting children in a bad manner, then let's not give violent games to them. You know, stick to the ol' age rating thing we have going on - but give out a fine for all those dumb asses who are buying 18 rated games for 5 year olds". I know, waiting until your 18 simply to play a game with a bit of violence is a bit harsh and all that, but think on it this way: You might well be mature and sound of mind enough to realise that blowing someones face across the beach with a sawnoff is not acceptable behaviour in todays society, but there is always someone who isn't. There is always someone who's jar is missing a few nuts.
There's my random tangled mass of a rant out and over with. Feel free to throw your pearls of wisdom at it, or savage it with a flamer.
If you don't/can't understand/like/reason-with/let by others own opinions, fuck off (I did say...)
I've been reading alot recently about some dumb fucks who want to have all games containing any and all types of violence removed from the shelves and banned into illegality. This includes swearing. My point of view on this is quite simply: Fuck. Off. Away. Now.
Computer games do not make me violent. Angry or upset at times, when a difficult bit is presented, but nothing amounts to physical violence to anything. What does make me angry enough to punch someone in the face are idiotic fools like those in the organisation entitled 'Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence' (MAVAV). And Hillery Clinton. MAVAV and the like? To me they appear to be in one of three groups.
Group 1: bunch of 'tarded parents who cannot control their children and give much needed discipline. IE: Bad Parents.
Group 2: Those Mothers/parents who are overly protective and paranoid about their childs safety. IE: Bad parents.
Group 3: Those who are actually genuinly worried about the topic of videogames causing violence. But, alas, cannot see the forest for the trees. Can't see that their course of action might actually make things worse. Ban games, and you get quite a few redundancies, which could lead to all sorts, but that's quite possibly for another discussion.
OK, so there is evidence that computer games can be bad for you, especially concerning the addictiveness of many. We can thank our Korean friends who have 'gamed' themselves to death for this information.
But is banning games the answer? What is the point in taking away something that so many enjoy? It is, after all, pixilated violence. A collection of pre-determined patterns upon a computer screen, which appear/shift/diseappear/change according to the input of the user.
If these people are so concerned with what computer games are doing to the psychology of 'youths' today and in the future, I for one think they should do some actual proper real research for a few years before jumping to conclusions. You know, is it actually computer games?
What kind of society would we live in if everyone did that? ...
"Oh no! My son was playing Scrabble, then he went out and fell off a bridge!!! SCRABBLE CAUSES SUICIDE! BAN IT!" I think not...but you know, there is always someone willing to jump on the band-wagon with them...
My opinion? If someone wants to kill themselves doing what they enjoy, as long as it doesn't harm others, more power to them. One less person in this over-crowded world (maybe a bit harsh, but it's been a bad day.) But now that I've had a small amount of time while writing this to think about it, Children are more erm...'open', for want of a better word, to ideas and the differences between right and wrong. They don't understand it yet, so they are not amoral - Giving a game like Grand Theft Auto to a child of 2-4 is quite possibly a really bad idea, especially if the parent is not hammering home that what is going on in the game is wrong.
Again though, back in the golden days right up until now, in the gaming industry, I can't see any games that would confuse a child between the differences between the game and reality. I see films as more of a culprit, as it involves real people, and real violence (as far as the childs eye can tell). So, if they show it on the tele, mummy, it's OK? But with all the new graphical advancements in games and reaching new heights of realism, soon games will be just as bad as the films
So, instead of saying "Well, games might be causing all these problems so let's get rid of them all completely. There, problem solved. Let's go have lunch." they could, and in my opinion should, be saying "Well, if it is affecting children in a bad manner, then let's not give violent games to them. You know, stick to the ol' age rating thing we have going on - but give out a fine for all those dumb asses who are buying 18 rated games for 5 year olds". I know, waiting until your 18 simply to play a game with a bit of violence is a bit harsh and all that, but think on it this way: You might well be mature and sound of mind enough to realise that blowing someones face across the beach with a sawnoff is not acceptable behaviour in todays society, but there is always someone who isn't. There is always someone who's jar is missing a few nuts.
There's my random tangled mass of a rant out and over with. Feel free to throw your pearls of wisdom at it, or savage it with a flamer.
