M-rated Games

[mechana2015]

I used to spend days in the GTA3 series just driving around and looking at stuff... and crashing cars trying jumps and stuff. Its always fun to cheat up a semi on top of the skyscraper in Los Santos and drive it off... or a hovercraft. Thats how I found out hovercrafts could glide.

[Scarecrow]

Here's something interesting, that further makes the "M-rated games are bad" argument totally invalid.

I can play a GTA game for a week, constantly doing different things, and never once have to kill someone or commit a crime. I can drive around and listen to the radio, I can drive people places in a taxi, I can save lives with an ambulance, I can deliver pizzas on a bike, and I can even put out fires with a firetruck. Aside from a few storyline missions, you never have to kill anyone at all in GTA.

Super Mario Bros., considered to be a family-friendly game and is E-rated, forces you to kill your enemies. You can make it through the first three boards without stomping a single Goomba or Koopa, but once you hit World 1-4 you have to dump the fake Bowser into the lava pit, thus killing him.

Isn't it interesting that you don't have to kill anyone in an M-rated game, but you are forced to kill someone in an E-rated game? Which is more "evil?"

Food for thought. :p

While I'm also "pro-M", this argument is ridiculous. First the comparison is completely unfair. They're two totally different types of games. At least compare something similar like Spider-Man or some other free roaming game. Second, if you want to actually play the storyline, yes you have to kill people. If you want to play the story in Super Mario Bros... yes you have to kill someone. If you wanna screw around in GTA putting out fires or driving people around in taxis, you can but IMO it's insanely boring. Just like if you wanted, you could sit there and stand in one spot and see if you can find some more hidden blocks without killing anything before your time runs out but again, that would be insanely boring.

[Jingo Jaden]

Hmmm, I could give you my insight on this matter.

In my mind, age is not the answer. However, it is the best solution we have nowadays. Still, there are quite a few 13 year olds that would digest an M rated game better than some unstable 18+ year olds.

In my case, I got a hold of quite a few M rated games when I was younger. My parents never really bothered about it. It did not affect me that much. However, it could have affected another person. More likely a younger person with less life experience than an older one.

So has M rated games ever influenced anyone to do crazy stuff? I think so. However, to say that it is the only trigger would be very wrong in pretty much every case. Then again, in GTA one tend kill people by shooting them. Imagen if children was so influenced by games that they would crush others under their bodyweight, like Mario does when he takes out most of his enemies.

There are multiple factors that are taken into consideration when setting an age sample on a game. Fear, Drugs, Violence, Sex, Discrimination and Language are just some of these. Some children does have a hard time identifying reality and fantasy. Some adults has that same problem as well.

I personally don't tend to mind the age label much. I like Mario Kart for example as well as I like much more mature games. It all comes down to fun factor. Will I enjoy the game? Will it make me think about deeper questions? Will it fool me and include a fine storyline? Violence and language I can deal with quite well. There are other factors that could disturb me more than that.

It really depends from person to person. How they react to it. Personally, I would feel much more angry after playing a bad game than if I was playing a violent one. Right now, we have no way of finding out how much of this a particular person can take. In the case of a child, it should come down to parents who are objective. You never really know what goes on in their heads though, which is what makes it risky. Then again, I think that the age levels is the only solution today that has some effect besides parenting/School observation. A younger person is more likely to be influenced than an older one. Again, it depends from person to person. If we had some tool that could measure how much a person could take without having any side effect then that would be far more optimal. Still, such a tool is not likely to exist anytime soon.

That's just a bit of my opinion regarding this subject.

[Nate]

First the comparison is completely unfair. They're two totally different types of games.

Were we arguing about gameplay or something that was actually dependent on the genre of game, I would consider that a valid point. However I was merely talking about the violence in the game itself, which is not dependent on the genre in any way.

You're saying we can't compare similar things in two disparate genres]Second, if you want to actually play the storyline, yes you have to kill people. If you want to play the story in Super Mario Bros... yes you have to kill someone.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that in GTA you do not have to play the storyline. You are not forced to. In Mario you are required to continually move to the right, because there's a timer on each stage.

Maybe this is what you meant by I couldn't compare them, because Mario is a side-scroller and that by its nature requires you to continually move right, while GTA doesn't have anything like that. However there are side-scrollers that don't force you to move right constantly, like Adventure Island, which has no timer.

Or, we could compare to Super Mario 64, a game that is free-roaming and has no timer. In which case, in order to even get the ten stars necessary to fight Bowser the first time, you need to kill enemies. Heck the first star in the game requires you to kill the enemy King Bomb. Sure, you COULD go into Bob-Omb Battlefield and just run around, but you wouldn't accomplish anything. In GTA you can accomplish a lot without killing anyone; you can't really accomplish anything in Super Mario 64 without killing anyone.

If you wanna screw around in GTA putting out fires or driving people around in taxis, you can but IMO it's insanely boring.

Considering Crazy Taxi is an extremely popular game, I'd say a majority of people disagree with you. That's why everyone has different tastes. XP
Just like if you wanted, you could sit there and stand in one spot and see if you can find some more hidden blocks without killing anything before your time runs out but again, that would be insanely boring.[/QUOTE]
And that's the difference, is just standing around or casually strolling in Mario would kill you after a couple of minutes, whereas in GTA you can play for weeks, always doing something different, without killing anyone.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that recently there was a study by Dr. Kimberly Thompson on violence in video games. The study included old arcade games that are not typically considered violent by most people, and rated on a percentage scale on violence. The results?

Pac-Man is 62% violent.

Dig Dug is 67% violent.

Centipede was a whopping 92.3% violent.

The study defined violence as, "acts in which the aggressor causes or attempts to cause physical injury or death to another character." The length of each violent act was recorded and compared to the total length of time each game was played, which was 90 minutes per game or until the game's completion. So, the 62% violent Pac-Man means that, assuming this measure is representative of actual gameplay, you'll spend 56 minutes out of every 90 on either the giving or receiving end of violence. The study also noted when the player is rewarded for violence, such as earning points for eating a ghost, or receiving an item for knocking down or killing an enemy.

Interestingly, in Pac-Man, Dig Dug, and Centipede, you are awarded points for killing enemies, especially in Dig Dug where crushing enemies under a rock gives you massive amounts of points. All these games are E-rated. In GTA, an M-rated game, not only are you not rewarded points for killing anybody, but you are penalized if a cop sees you, causing you to gain a wanted star and have the cops trying to take you down.

Now I'm not saying that this study Dr. Thompson did is without its flaws. For example, it was rated merely on how much violence was in the game overall, which is why a game like Centipede got an unbelievably high score, because you're shooting things practically all the time. Newer games such as Manhunt may have less violence per amount of time played, but the violence is more realistic. I don't think anyone would say Centipede is inappropriate for children and Manhunt is; that would be a stupid thing to claim.

And yeah, obviously, everyone who plays GTA is going to play the storyline, they're not going to drive around for six months doing odd jobs. I was using that as an example, that you aren't REQUIRED to kill anything to play a game of GTA (storyline aside), but that you are required to kill things in older, more acceptable games.

[Haruhiko]

I just want to say I'm 13, I play Metal Gear Solid, and not once have I wanted to take a gun and start shooting things.

And with that, I leave this thread.

[Scarecrow]

Maybe this is what you meant by I couldn't compare them, because Mario is a side-scroller and that by its nature requires you to continually move right, while GTA doesn't have anything like that.

Yes, that's what I was getting at.

And yeah, obviously, everyone who plays GTA is going to play the storyline, they're not going to drive around for six months doing odd jobs. I was using that as an example, that you aren't REQUIRED to kill anything to play a game of GTA (storyline aside), but that you are required to kill things in older, more acceptable games.

Ya I know what you're trying to say I just think it was a shaky argument (still do but it doesn't matter).

To be honest I think a better argument would be why is it any more acceptable to advance Marios storyline killing stuff for points than it is to advance GTAs or any other M rated game?

It really depends from person to person. How they react to it. Personally, I would feel much more angry after playing a bad game than if I was playing a violent one.

Lol... I agree. I wanted to throw my TV out after trying to play through that one Batman game from a few years ago. That stupid one where you had to hand cuff everyone or they all get back up and you gotta fight em all over again.

[blkmage]

Let's consider a less comical example: Civilization. Civilization is rated E and yet, the number of people I've killed over all of my Civ games is order of magnitudes more than all the other games I've played put together. So is committing genocide any more acceptable than shooting people in the face? Is Civilization a more wholesome game because we raze cities, but we're removed from the act?

But killing and mass murder and war are wrong! The obvious answer is to use other means to achieve victory. So what are the other ways you can win? We can control the economy of the planet, or we can subvert other nations through our culture and religion, or we can simply do it through diplomacy. But Civilization is supposed to simulate human history. Is it right to remove all the undesirable parts so that it's more socially acceptable to us?

Removing war from Civilization would trivialize human history. In the same way, removing everything we find offensive trivializes the work (in this case, a game). We are way harder on games in terms of mature content than any other medium than we should be. And finally, again, whether or not mature games influence children is a non-issue because they shouldn't be playing them in the first place. Of course, this last statement holds true for any work in any other media.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

[quote="Nate (post: 1230504)"]Were we arguing about gameplay or something that was actually dependent on the genre of game, I would consider that a valid point. However I was merely talking about the violence in the game itself, which is not dependent on the genre in any way.

You're saying we can't compare similar things in two disparate genres]
In a way, you make a point. But the presentation and style of the violence is different. Mario is obviously much more cartoonish, and the way it is presented makes it so that it's a little towards the comedic side. You are also fighting the bad guys. Mario gets Bowser in a vat of hot lava, you save the princess, justice is served.

In GTA IV, you can kill practically anybody. Men, woman, children, police officers, etc. I will say that the violence isn't always gratuitous, but in terms of realism and presentation, it's certainly much heavier than Mario.

Imagine a Mario game where you drove around running over Goombas and shooting Koopas in the head with a gun, and having blood splatter everywhere. Also try to imagine a GTA game where you have to run sideways, jump on the heads of police officers or pedestrians, and having them flail their arms and disappear from the screen. I imagine that the former might be a little harder to stomach for some people.

And psychologically, I think most people in general would be more offended when seeing a fictionalized scene of a human getting killed over a Goomba getting killed.

[ich1990]

I just want to say I'm 13, I play Metal Gear Solid, and not once have I wanted to take a gun and start shooting things.

And with that, I leave this thread.

Let me repost something from an old thread. I think that it applies here.

First, I would like to point out a few verses:

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him]

You have heard that it was said, 'you shall not commit adultery']

These verses make it pretty clear that God is concerned, not only with what you actually do, but what your motives and internal desires are. Just because you are not knocking off old ladies and stealing their Caddilacs in real life, does not mean that you aren't sinning. Becuase I am not God, I do not know what your motives are, so I will not condemn you for playing MGS (in fact, I have heard that is a pretty fun game). I would encourage you, however, to ask yourself why you are playing that game.

Also, I would like to point out the last part of the above quoted verse. If your right hand makes you stumble, it is better to cut it off! By this standard, giving up a video game seems pretty tame.

Also, even if the game isn't making you sin, you need to ask yourself: "is it really worth my time?"

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

Does MGS fit the bill?

If you can play this game without sinning in your mind or real life, if you have discovered deep spiritual truths in the game (hey, it could happen) thereby considering it worth dwelling on, and you can honor God while playing it (not impossible), there is still one more thing to consider.

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

Whether you like it or not, you are in a position of responsibility: maybe you are influencing your siblings, or maybe you are swaying the mind of someone here on these boards. Please ask yourself, "Do I really want endorse zero media restraint among these people?" (because that is what you are doing if you say that outward action is the sole indicator of sin). It may not be a stumbling block for you, but it could very easily be one for someone else. You need to be mindful of that when you promote something that is of dubious spiritual value (especially considering you are not seventeen years of age and are referencing a mature rated game).

The bottom line is that the issue is much more complicated then it seems at first. Please think and pray about it.

[Sheenar]

It really depends from person to person. How they react to it.

I agree with Jaden. It all depends on how much you personally can handle.

For example, Worms Armageddon is one of my favorite games--you use really cool weapons (like sheep, old ladies, the Holy Hand Grenade, etc.) to obliterate your enemies. It's cartoonish and loads of fun to play.

But then games like Doom and Half-Life are a little harder for me to handle. Sure they were fun, but I personally was scared half out of my wits playing --wondering what was going to pop up and try to kill me. It was freaky (especially in the parts of Doom where it's really dark and the parts in Half-Life where the annoying yellow creatures are attacking and I can't seem to aim well enough to kill them).

I personally enjoy Worms a lot better. But that's just my personal preference. If I didn't get scared so easily from games like Doom and Half-Life, I would probably enjoy them more. (I do like games like Deer Hunter/other hunting games --and the James Bond/Halo games are fun too).

[Nate]

In GTA IV, you can kill practically anybody. Men, woman, children, police officers, etc.

*sigh* And once again we have people who don't even PLAY the game talk about it like they're experts. There are NO CHILDREN in GTA games. There are old ladies, old men, middle-aged people, but not a single child to be found. Yes I realize you didn't know, but what's the old saying? Ignorance is no excuse? It's the same thing Jack Thompson does, saying that GTA IV has graphic depictions of sex when it doesn't.

"Do I really want endorse zero media restraint among these people?"

I'm pretty sure practically everyone who has posted here has basically said kids shouldn't be playing M-rated games. I'd hardly call that "endorsing zero media restraint."

It may not be a stumbling block for you, but it could very easily be one for someone else.

And once again this verse is taken out of context. "Stumbling block" means something that makes someone else sin. Nothing else. If they're not tempted to sin then it's not a stumbling block. What they mean by that is, for example, someone who is an alcoholic stops by your house. Don't crack open a beer in front of him because it will tempt him to get drunk. THAT is a stumbling block, not playing something that other people find offensive. If my twelve year old brother thinks GTA is Satan incarnate and I play it in front of him and he isn't tempted to play it, then it's not a stumbling block.

Two, we're not playing it in front of them here on the forums anyway. What I do in my living room when I'm not in front of this monitor doesn't affect them one whit.

(especially considering you are not seventeen years of age and are referencing a mature rated game).

First, while practically everyone here has said kids shouldn't play M-rated games, it's a general guideline, not an iron-clad rule. The only games kids shouldn't play, period, is AO games. The ESRB ratings are paralleled to the MPAA ratings, and AO is equivalent to NC-17. M is equivalent to R. I don't particularly endorse most kids seeing R-rated movies either (Schindler's List is the exception, I think everyone should see that movie). However it's up to the parents, in the end. Should a kid play an M-rated game? Should a kid watch an R-rated movie? What kind of content is in it?

Haruhiko is 13, and I guess his mom says it's okay for him to play MGS. Which is fine, there isn't particularly a lot of offensive stuff in there anyway, just some violence. She might not let him play GTA IV. It's a difference in content. Just like some parents might let their 13 year old kid watch Terminator, but probably not Bikini Car Wash.

If a parent says their kid can play an M-rated game, or watch an R-rated movie, it's their call. We may not agree with it but we're not that kid's parents.

Also, even if the game isn't making you sin, you need to ask yourself: "is it really worth my time?"

Because God never wants us to have any free time to enjoy ourselves. e.e

Look God is the most important thing in life, no question. God should always be number one in our lives. But seriously to say "Is it really worth your time?" That to me seems like a thinly veiled way of saying "I think the things you like suck therefore I'm going to make it seem like a moral issue." I could say the same thing, as you have Uryu in your avatar, I could say a lot of things about Bleach and make it seem really bad to watch.

Is it really worth my time? Anything that doesn't cause us to sin, that we ENJOY, is really worth our time. There is no commandment against enjoying ourselves in the Bible, and if we enjoy something, and if it doesn't cause us to sin (that is important), then who are we to question what someone else enjoys? No one, that's who. Since you seem to like verses so much let me quote one back at you:

3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Emphasis added by me.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

*sigh* And once again we have people who don't even PLAY the game talk about it like they're experts. There are NO CHILDREN in GTA games. There are old ladies, old men, middle-aged people, but not a single child to be found. Yes I realize you didn't know, but what's the old saying? Ignorance is no excuse? It's the same thing Jack Thompson does, saying that GTA IV has graphic depictions of sex when it doesn't.

Mmmm yeah, my mistake. Nonetheless, would you not say that my counter-argument has some validity in what I'm saying?

Hey, at least I have the game. Just haven't been playing it much. Too busy with Metal Gear Solid.

[ich1990]

Nate's post.

You have made several very valid points. If I was trying to condemn him for playing MGS or stop him from playing M-rated games, your counter-arguments would have been effective. I wasn't. All I was doing was pointing out the complexities of the issue] Since you seem to like verses so much [/QUOTE]

What is not to like?

[Nate]

Mmmm yeah, my mistake. Nonetheless, would you not say that my counter-argument has some validity in what I'm saying?

No, because then you become Jack Thompson or Fox News. "Even though this content isn't actually in the game treat it as though it is so that it makes these games seem more evil than they actually are!" It's like how the Romans said that the early Christians were cannibals and had human sacrifices. It wasn't true, but they used it to make Christianity seem terrible and something to be wiped out.

For the record, in the Mario games, you do beat up a child, in fact, you beat up lots of children (Bowser Jr. and the other seven Koopa Kids).

[CAAOutkast]

Usually it's the player and not the game itself. When we think that its the game,its in reality the gamer.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

No, because then you become Jack Thompson or Fox News. "Even though this content isn't actually in the game treat it as though it is so that it makes these games seem more evil than they actually are!" It's like how the Romans said that the early Christians were cannibals and had human sacrifices. It wasn't true, but they used it to make Christianity seem terrible and something to be wiped out.

For the record, in the Mario games, you do beat up a child, in fact, you beat up lots of children (Bowser Jr. and the other seven Koopa Kids).

How am I saying there is content that is not in there? I already said that I was wrong about children being present in GTA IV. You can't disagree on the fact that the two presentations of violence in GTA and Mario are stylistically different.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even read my entire post.

[GrubbTheFragger]

Wow guys, honestly don't be mad at me for saying this but for the sack of any more aguments agree to disagree. Old games are violent yes, But so is GTA i agree with all the points for the most part. Mario is a plumber in a different would jumping on mushroom looking enimies and then he chases after a giant dinosaur creature. And in GTA your a mobster,gang member who comes to america,movies home, moves to get more money and then you kill fellow men old young and women old young (granted i don't recall it being a mission to kill a female but just a option). Both are violent in context but they are not remotely close on the way violence is handled. This is a agrument that can span weeks lets just agree to disagree. *already see's this post pulling him into the argument*

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Grubb, I think Nate's just trying to argue his point for the sake of being some sort of vigilante for video games.

[Fish and Chips]

I'm beginning to wonder if you even read my entire post.

I am beginning to wonder if Ryan even reads Nate's entire posts.

[Nate]

You can't disagree on the fact that the two presentations of violence in GTA and Mario are stylistically different.

I never claimed they WERE stylistically different. *points to what Fish said above me* I was never talking about the amount of blood portrayed, how many body parts show up in an explosion, or anything like that.

My point, which STILL stands, is that an E-rated game forces you to kill and an M-rated game doesn't. Which is more morally reprehensible?

I think blkmage brought up an excellent point, which I will quote:

Civilization is rated E and yet, the number of people I've killed over all of my Civ games is order of magnitudes more than all the other games I've played put together. So is committing genocide any more acceptable than shooting people in the face? Is Civilization a more wholesome game because we raze cities, but we're removed from the act?

In Civilization, which is rated E, you can wipe out entire nations. I'd say that's more violent and maybe a bit more disturbing than in a GTA game where you shoot someone, there's a small amount of blood, and they fall over.

In fact, in the GTA games, I don't know if you're aware of this, but you can shoot someone multiple times with an AK-47. An ambulance will soon pull up, a couple of guys in green clothes will come out, bend down next to the person for about five seconds, and the person you just filled with bullet holes will get up and walk around like nothing happened. That's so UNrealistic I can't even fathom how anyone could be disturbed by it. And it's not like guts are flying around, it's not like it's a fountain of blood like Kill Bill. Just a few spurts.

But in Civilization, it's acceptable to murder thousands, nay, MILLIONS of people? Just because we don't see their individual faces? Just because we don't see them getting personally stabbed by a spear or run through with a sword? So as long as they're just nameless hordes we can gleefully slaughter them at will and rate it E and say it's great for kids to play?

How absurd is that? Seriously?

Yeah, okay, the bad guys in Mario are pretty "evil" for the most part, but how is that different than GTA? You're not required to kill random bystanders on the street in the game. Practically all of the people you kill in storyline events are rival gangsters, drug dealers, pimps, etc., who could all be classified as "evil." The only mission I really had any problems with was one of Donald Love's missions in Liberty City Stories,
[SPOILER]where you steal a hearse and deliver the corpse to Donald Love, who is a cannibal, for him to eat[/SPOILER]
but I don't think that was a mission you had to do to advance the storyline.

Yeah, you can kill practically anyone in the GTA games. And you will get beaten down by cops for doing so. You get PUNISHED for wanton murder in these games. Even pointing your gun at a cop, without shooting him, will immediately get you a two star wanted level. Keep killing cops and you get higher wanted stars, and eventually the FBI and national guard will come after you. You're not being rewarded for killing these cops or random people.

CONVERSELY, in a Mario game, you are constantly rewarded for killing anything that movies, with points and even 1-ups. And yeah, the turtles and Goombas can hurt you, but there's no indication that they're evil or malicious. Those turtles are just walking around. They don't come after you. Maybe they're just minding their own business, like the random people in GTA. And here you come and stomp on it and kill it and get rewarded, and enjoy it.

Which is more reprehensible? That's the point I'm making.

Grubb, I think Nate's just trying to argue his point for the sake of being some sort of vigilante for video games.

Right, because there's no way I actually believe this stuff, and am tired of M-rated games being picked on for no good reason. It can't possibly be that. No, I'm just a crazy vigilante who's arguing about video games because I just like to argue.

[Gabriel 9.0]

My point, which STILL stands, is that an E-rated game forces you to kill and an M-rated game doesn't. Which is more morally reprehensible?

What about games like Soldier of Fortune? Where you literally dismember a hostile force.
Or Facry.
Gears of War. Etc.

On topic now. I really find nothing wrong with M-rated or E-rated games.

[GrubbTheFragger]

Yeah, you can kill practically anyone in the GTA games. And you will get beaten down by cops for doing so. You get PUNISHED for wanton murder in these games. Even pointing your gun at a cop, without shooting him, will immediately get you a two star wanted level. Keep killing cops and you get higher wanted stars, and eventually the FBI and national guard will come after you. You're not being rewarded for killing these cops or random people.

CONVERSELY, in a Mario game, you are constantly rewarded for killing anything that movies, with points and even 1-ups. And yeah, the turtles and Goombas can hurt you, but there's no indication that they're evil or malicious. Those turtles are just walking around. They don't come after you. Maybe they're just minding their own business, like the random people in GTA. And here you come and stomp on it and kill it and get rewarded, and enjoy it.

Which is more reprehensible? That's the point I'm making.

That right there is the kinda of point i expect to see during big agruments one's that make since.

[uc pseudonym]

Let's consider a less comical example: Civilization. Civilization is rated E and yet, the number of people I've killed over all of my Civ games is order of magnitudes more than all the other games I've played put together. So is committing genocide any more acceptable than shooting people in the face? Is Civilization a more wholesome game because we raze cities, but we're removed from the act?

This brings up a question I think this thread in general needs to consider: what is it that makes a game morally reprehensible? Is it the act of playing an action that would be immoral in real life, or the argument that the games encourage violent behavior? Both have been argued almost interchangeably, yet they are very different.

But I hope that most of us don't believe the former. The Bible example has been overdone, but it works again: there are numerous wrong acts portrayed within and Christians don't say it is immoral. On the other hand, I'm not sure how many of us believe the latter. My suspicion is that most people here don't believe either.

But if someone does believe it is the ability to influence, then the Mario point (amusing as it may be) isn't valid for them. Mario "kills" in a way that barely resembles life, whereas Manhunt could conceivably twist your sense of morality and teach you how to kill a person.

*sigh* And once again we have people who don't even PLAY the game talk about it like they're experts. There are NO CHILDREN in GTA games. There are old ladies, old men, middle-aged people, but not a single child to be found. Yes I realize you didn't know, but what's the old saying? Ignorance is no excuse? It's the same thing Jack Thompson does, saying that GTA IV has graphic depictions of sex when it doesn't.

Nate, I don't disagree with you all that much here, but your response to this point frustrated me. Ryan posted this:

In GTA IV, you can kill practically anybody. Men, woman, children, police officers, etc.

And you latched onto one word that was inaccurate. His point was "you can kill practically anybody" - that is true regardless of if there are children in the game.

That point is based on the idea that the two games are stylistically different: regardless of if it is valid of Ryan to think that it is different to kill animal-like clearly designated enemies* than realistic innocent human bystanders, that's what he's trying to say. As I read his argument, he's saying your comparison isn't valid because the killings are qualitatively different. So if you haven't claimed that the games are stylistically different, you haven't really been addressing his point. That brings me back to my original point in this post - we aren't talking about the same thing when we say a game is immoral.

*If they touch you it results in death, so I think we can safely assume they're not innocently walking around.

Finally, I want to ask a question completely aside from my argument. This is honestly just to help me understand.

The only mission I really had any problems with was one of Donald Love's missions in Liberty City Stories where you had to [spoiler] but I don't think that was a mission you had to do to advance the storyline.

Why? Unless you just mean it was uncomfortable for you, how is that any morally worse from genocide in Civilization?

I am beginning to wonder if Ryan even reads Nate's entire posts.

I am beginning to wonder if I even read my own posts.

[Fish and Chips]

I haven't actually said a lot on this topic, so I'll do so now.

Children inhabit a fairly mailable mental state. And while I do believe aggressive and violent behavior can certainly have an influence on the kids, this is across the board, all violent media. People blaming societies ills on the gaming industry, ignoring all the summer blockbuster action films, is both incredibly shallow minded of them and refusal to bite the bullet of parental responsibility. Children can browse the badly written erotic romance section of a bookshop and their parents will never know, but including a sexual scene in a game already intended for mature audiences is kind of a big deal? If you want to crusade against media content, at least be consistent in your arguments. And there is nothing in video games that has never been done in books and film many times over, lather and rinse.

Jack Thompson loves to send his underage son into various game retailers, trying to buy Mature games for the purposes of his political agenda. Am I the only person who sees the inherent irony in a parent allowing his son freedom with no supervision then claiming it is the industry's responsibility? Yes, I know why he does it, that does not change the situation. And that is his son would never hang out in there if not for his father's denial of responsibility.

So does the mature gaming industry leave children off for the worst? I honestly do not know, because mailable young kids should not have these games in the first place. That is the duty of parents.

[Monkey J. Luffy]

As long as an M-rated game isn't affecting you in any moral way, there's really no harm done. Of course, there are games that bring down the industry, but that's only things like stupid H-games, and games with nudity (since looking at crap like that is obviously morally wrong), but when you play games that are M for things like blood and swearing, as long as you don't find yourself killing people and dropping the F-bomb to everyone around you (which I truly doubt anyone does because of a video game), there really is no harm done. Plus my favorite games are M (The Orange Box, Killer7 and No More Heroes)

[Nate]

That brings me back to my original point in this post - we aren't talking about the same thing when we say a game is immoral.

Right, well, I agree. What does make a game immoral? If it's just killing things, then Mario is just as immoral as GTA. Is it just blood that makes a game immoral? Because that makes little, if any sense.

I agree that the killings in Mario aren't quite as realistic as in GTA (though one could conceivably jump on a turtle in real life, and it would probably kill it), but if it's a matter of the killings being realistic then wouldn't God of War be completely fine? After all the killings in God of War are so fantastically ridiculous that they're nowhere near plausible.

*If they touch you it results in death, so I think we can safely assume they're not innocently walking around.

Not necessarily their fault though. Which brings up a point. How come it hurts you when an enemy walks into you, but it doesn't hurt an enemy for you to walk into them?

The answer is, of course, "A wizard did it."

Why? Unless you just mean it was uncomfortable for you, how is that any morally worse from genocide in Civilization?

Yeah, I meant like that's the only mission that personally disturbed me. It doesn't make the game worse than any other game for the most part, it just made me a bit queasy. XD That's really the only mission I can think of in any of the GTA games where you're not doing something to a "bad" guy.

games with nudity (since looking at crap like that is obviously morally wrong)

Oh good Lord. Please tell me that this thread isn't going to go down the road of "Nudity is sinful." How many other threads have we gone over this in? -.-

The game Actraiser has a naked little angel that you control during the simulation parts of the game. It isn't morally wrong for me to look at that. Looking at nudity isn't sinful if it doesn't inspire lust. Geez. If nudity was sinful the Sistine Chapel (protip: chapel means "church") would be burned to the ground for depicting nudity in the paintings on its ceiling.

[CAAOutkast]

Look,We all know that Porno and Hentai are wrong,but thats not what we're talking about here. We are talking about Video Game violence and it's effect on society.

[Nate]

Actually we're talking about M-rated games, which can conceivably have nudity/sex in them. It's just that violence has become the focus of this thread, rather than sex. I guess it's because we can all agree porn and adultery is wrong (and nudity does NOT equal porn/adultery/sex), but violence not so much.

[Sheenar]

I agree with Jaden. It all depends on how much you personally can handle.

For example, Worms Armageddon is one of my favorite games--you use really cool weapons (like sheep, old ladies, the Holy Hand Grenade, etc.) to obliterate your enemies. It's cartoonish and loads of fun to play.

But then games like Doom and Half-Life are a little harder for me to handle. Sure they were fun, but I personally was scared half out of my wits playing --wondering what was going to pop up and try to kill me. It was freaky (especially in the parts of Doom where it's really dark and the parts in Half-Life where the annoying yellow creatures are attacking and I can't seem to aim well enough to kill them).

Just to reiterate my previous point, I think the issue of violence in games all boils down to: "How much can I, as an individual, handle?"
The violence in Worms is just funny and cartoonish. But in Doom, it kind of disturbed me because of the amount of gore/scariness of the characters.
But I know guys and girls that can play Doom and not be bothered by it at all.
It all comes down to how much each person can handle individually.

And no, I don't think violence in games is wrong. Children should just be kept from playing games that are too gory/violent for their age level. That is what the ratings are for. But I think M-rated games can be appropriate for someone of the right age/maturity to handle the content.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I can see where our points were askew, Nate. Fair enough. I now understand what you were trying to say. I imagine that the ESRB takes killing at different levels, as they grade more intense violence higher than comical 8-bit violence.

To go to your previous question, you asked which game was more morally reprehensible? I have an analogy for you which I believe can work similarly to your question.

Suppose that I am forced to kill a Black Widow Spider that is in my house. The Black Widow Spider's target is me, and I have nothing that'll safely enable me to move the spider to another location. Basically, if I do not kill it, I will be bitten. Also, when I kill it, people will praise me for killing such a dangerous spider. I can also kill the mailman that is making his runs. Which is morally reprehensible?