Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
-
Content Count
1546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
-
-
As far as i can see Bals is saying that certain content should not be in games. Basically, if a game celebrates murder then it should be banned?Very difficult to decide......very difficult.....once you get into banning say, murder in games, you lose alot of good games....
In Manhunt, it looks like you are killing for the sake of killing and the sheer "fun" of killing....i think this is probably what you mean Bals.....in games like Max Payne and OFP, you are not killing people soley for kicks off the act, its story driven, its not glorified, ect.....
I just did 2 minutes research and found the story for manhunt. Yes, it has a story (its extremely similar to the Arnie film 'Running Man' which, while not a great film, wasn't really violent for the sake of it). No, it's not about killing for the sake of killing. Its about killing to survive.
It is story driven. It IS glorified, but then so is violence in other games.
Still waiting for anyone to give me an example of how to ban 'bad' games without banning good games (GTA counts as a good game, BTW)
-
Quote[/b] ] You seem to be saying 'some games should be banned because I don't like them.'I have a problem with that statement.
No, I don´t seem to be saying that. You´re trying to make it look like that but I don´t say such.
And as I made no statement like that you´re obviously having a problem with something you are trying to make up. As I said . Read my posts.
YesQuote[/b] ]Postal 2 celebrate the method of killing with weird weapons in a very unhuman and disturbing wayIt´s my opinion that games wich celebrate manslaughter in a very disturbing way should be forbidden.
As snuff videos are forbidden.
Can you see the diffence anymore ?
I don´t need such nor I don´t want such ) or Postal 2 celebrate the method of killing with weird weapons in a very unhuman and disturbing way.This should be forbidden.
Bals, I am not trying to make it look like anything. I'm trying to figure out what you are saying.
If you are using some other meaning of forbidden then please tell me, but as far as I am aware its fairly synonymous with 'banned.'
I notice you have not answered anything to do with the censorship issue. I don't expect you to; its impossible. You cannot ban 'bad' games without banning good games.
-
With respect Baron, you seem to be placing words in my mouth. I didn't say the magazines made the games, I didn't say the games caused the incident and I didn't call for anything to be banned.However, the games magazines and the software houses are part of the same industry and both are pushing sensationalsim for the sake of it. My complaint though is not that the games are violent but that violence is all they have to sell them.
I apologise; that was not my intention.
You are maintaining a stronger link than exists between magazine journalists and games companies though- beyond some corrupt journos taking money for inflating scores, the game makers don't have much of a say in what the article says.
The simple way to protest about that is not to buy the games. That is all you need to do. The makers give the public what they appear to want. If you want to blame someone for violent, sensationalist games, blame the idiots who buy them - the public. Don't buy magazines which give inflated scores to shitty games. Tell them.
Quote[/b] ]I'm not wanting an end to violent games, I want them to make good games. I want to see magazines boasting "the BEST shooter ever". As far as I'm aware a lot of these titles like 'Manhunt' are not especially big sellers once people realise how poor the games are. I've certainly not played 'Manhunt' because every review I've seen said clumsy, limited and shallow. 'Vice City' on the other hand I played through to the end and enjoyed. I've got more than enough violent games and movies in my collection. I would primarily describe them as good games and videos though.
Good. If a games particularly good, recommend friends/ family to buy it too.
Who does then? They do, I have to disagree. They start phoning up and emailing everywhere they can think of, kick up a disproportionate fuss, and get 'news.' The mother of the killer in this case immediately started blaming games, instead of her bad parenting.Pressure groups don't place these stories on front pages.
A lot of journalists, especially tabloid journalists, wouldn't know the truth if it battered fuck out of them in their local pub during their hour long lunchbreak, and wouldn't care anyway; all they care about is ratings and viewers. (Although not all of them, by any means)Quote[/b] ]And we have to assume that all the journalists knew the facts in the case.
-
Sure.For every percentage of the popular vote that Kerry gets more than Bush I get 100 of your postcount.
For every percentage of the popular vote that Bush gets more than Kerry you get 200 of my postcount.
That's right, I'm offering you 2:1 odds. If you agree then just say so and we can ask Placebo to accommodate and officiate.
What do you say?
What if certain cronies of a certain 'president' tamper with the way the votes are counted and who can and cannot vote?
-
Quote[/b] ]I don't think you heard that right. He didn't say God was on his side. In fact, he said quite the opposite. Quoting Lincoln, he humbly hoped that he was on the side of God. Not at all the same arrogant claim the right has insisted on making all along.I was saying that other people before Bush used the term before him (WWII and the Cold War).
What has that to do with the price of cheese?
-
16 million is still a large number and the price tag is very high. Also, he did say he would give all americans health coverage....Quote[/b] ]And when I am president, we will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, and the connected and the elected; it is a right for all Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
And we will make it so.
He doesn't say 'all Americans will immediately get health care' - he just says he will make it a right. Theres a difference. And as I said, I don't see that big a change coming quickly to selfish americans. You will need a little time to get used to the idea.
Quote[/b] ]Basically, pro-lifers were afraid that calling a fetus an "unborn child"/human will start lawsuits against abortions.
...You're not saying you're one of those fuckwits who are against abortion, are you? And that sentence doesn't make sense. Do you mean pro-choice?
*edit*
Yes, you did. How many babies have you brought up on a single mothers income? None? Then I don't think you have any idea or right to speak about abortion, thank you very much.
-
Hmm. I'm on a dynamic IP, and I don't have a warezed copy of OFP; (and I'm not in the habit of doing things to get banned from servers) - maybe my IP range was banned. I'll ask Balschiow
-
I found alternate sources for the speech. Its quite good. I think I'd vote for Kerry if I was American.
This is the only part I don't like:
"And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country."
And its not that bad. Could have had more reference to the other 15% of Americans that are totally missing from that statement. But its far better than Bush's claims to be a messenger from god or whatever religious crap he spouts.
Quote[/b] ]Kerry released a TV ad June 3 in which he tells a small gathering that 43 million don't have health care. That's not true -- he means they don't have health insurance. He also says health care "ought to be a right that we make accessible and affordable to every single American." But even his own proposals fall short of making health care a "right," and would leave an estimated 16 million uninsured.Despite the exaggeration, Kerry's ad gives a generally correct impression of a growing problem, and highlights a major point of difference between the candidates on what to do about it.
............
That would be a major accomplishment -- and an expensive one. Thorpe estimates the cost at $653 billion over 10 years. But it would still leave about 16 million Americans without coverage.
Is the writer stupid or does he not realise that 16 million without coverage is better than 43 million without coverage? I don't see such a fundamental change to US policies (you guys are really opposed to helping other Americans, aren't you?) being done in one step ; and that seems like a good first step to me. He didn't even say he would give all americans health coverage; he said they should have coverage. Whats the problem?
The other thing: I don't quite get it. Was Kerry voting for something that would hinder abortion, or for something that would leave women with their right to choose?
-
Ah right, you just ignore the parts that malign Bush.
I see.
-
Need to register to read the article.
That website you keep referring to seems to be very, very biased towards republicans (in favour of republicans.) Does it ever say anything remotely bad about them?
Anyway: how Kerry could have been in East Germany: Whatever the US/ Nato equivalent of Brixmis was. (I don't know what specifically you are referring to but I think you mean at some point in the cold war)
That is; he could have been going across as part of a spotting team to view the soviet parade (and unofficially anything else around.) - this was in order to check the other side wasn't cheating on the terms of the peace accords they had. Soviet teams ran similar inspections on the other side of the border.
Or it could have been some political thing.
-
You can´t argue my opinion away. What´s your point ? It´s my opinion and I stand with it.If you´ve read my entry properly you´d seen that I think that developers have a responsibility. And I stand by that. There´s a market for any sick idea, but does that mean we have to visualize that ? Only because it will sell and contains "Incredibly real gfx of 1000 different deaths" ?
Don´t you get what I´m trying to say ?
Another thing to consider Bals:
I really don't see the appeal of this particular game. I don't want to play it. But I cannot see how you would make a law, or edict, or whatever that would stop this game and not stop almost any other 18 rated game.
The key thing here is that once you start censoring things, there is a VERY slippery slope. Its far better to have people that can think for themselves and follow a simple age recommendation, than to start banning things left right and centre.
I think my point is made, but other examples:
Give me a law that would stop 'sick' films that glorify violence, are very distasteful and all that stuff, but would not stop any of these films:
Apocalypse Now
The Godfather
Goodfellas
Scarface
Platoon
The Silence of the Lambs
Alien
Leon
Kill Bill
Reservoir Dogs
The list goes on and on.
Censorship is a BAD idea, except for matters of national security and even then I'm against it.
-
Maybe Hassle the Hoff, the newest rap sensation, can sign it.
-
Well I don't think I really understand you. You seem to be saying 'some games should be banned because I don't like them.'
I have a problem with that statement.
I do not have a problem with 'I don't like such games and I will never buy one like it.'
If that is what you mean, then I don't have a problem with it nor any wish to argue.
-
Snuff films are forbidden because they involve ACTUALLY killing people.
Games are NOT real. Do you see the difference?
NO censorship. That doesn't mean that you can break other laws in order to make films, or games, or whatever.
-
Quote[/b] ]Just because we might not like something, does not mean it shoud be banned.No, I dont say such. I just say that I don´t need such games. They are beyond a limit for me.
That´s just my solo standing golden opinion, nothing else
Ummm..
[/b]Quote ]This should be forbidden.Did someone else write that into your post?
-
I don't like CS; I don't need such stuff. A really tasteless and disgusting game: I think it should be forbidden.
'I don't like OFP; I don't need such stuff. A really tasteless and disgusting game: I think it should be forbidden.'
Just because we might not like something, does not mean it shoud be banned.
Censorship is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Parents should take responsibility for their children, and adults should be able to decide things for themselves, not have it enforced on them.
-
I don't believe for a minute that games or films or these other things are to blame. They can however influence the way these incidents manifest. The use of the claw hammer does appear to be a connection, though equally there's a new Korean film 'Old guy' which has creative use of a claw hammer. Shift this a couple of months in time and the Koreans could be getting the blame.This is not the first case where an apparent game link has turned up. There was a cinema shooting in San Paolo some time back where the gunman put one bullet into the mirror before going on his spree. It was lifted out of Duke Nukem and seems to have been a very real influence on a guy who also, as it happens, was a drug addict.
I think that games can have an influence on people who are of a certain mindset and while the same can be said of books or music or anything else it doesn't absolve the games industry when it makes cheap sensational crap.
Ummm. Yes, it does. The games industry, like the film industry, like the 'book industy' makes what sells. What idiots with little grasp of reality do is neither the authors fault, the actors fault, the screenwriters fault, the artists fault nor the programmers fault. There is no absolution needed; it is NOTHING to do with these industries what psychopaths do. The psychopaths may (still not proven) be influenced by the industries: they are definitely not created by the industries. They may use a claw hammer instead of an aluminium baseball bat; they are still crazies and they are not created by playing games.
There are millions of people playing games; these supposed 'murder trainers.' BUT, the rate of crazies going apeshit and killing others is NOT getting higher. News companies make a bigger deal about individual incidents but the actual rate per head of population is not rising at what it would be if there was the slightest truth to this pseudoscientific crap.
In other words: if the claims of crazies like Joe Lieberman were true, we'd all be out killing people. Yes, even you Avon; we do play a realistic 'murder simulator.'
Quote[/b] ]I've seen too many games magazines lately boasting "the most violent game ever".
And? You have a problem with the press now? The magazines are NOT the games makers. The makers make what sells.
You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. Have you even played manhunt? (I haven't - but then I'm not complaining about its quality)Quote[/b] ]If this industry doesn't want to take the blame for things it goes about it in a funny way. If 'Manhunt' had been a better game it might have been less likely to have caught this flack. GTA 3 managed to rise above these complaints because of its quality. Likewise OFP. It's violent but it was never about the violence, even with the blood mod and quite massive body counts.
Quote[/b] ]The film industry went through this with the video nasty business but it also grew out of it and seems to escape from finger pointing now.
BECAUSE THE SAME FUCKTARDS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT GAMES NOW
It is not so much the press as these know-nothing pressure groups. They would not see the difference between manhunt and OFP, to be honest.Quote[/b] ]Mayby a few software houses might take a few lessons from them and start producing things with a bit more merit on the back of this. We need to find a gaming Scorcese or Tarantino to change the way violence works in this field. Then the press might start to show a more mature response to the issue rather than responding to sensationalist crap with sensationalist crap.
Quote[/b] ]Or perhaps I expect too much of the press.
-
Well, just my idea, I think that having easier pilot huds ect would prevent helicopters full of passengers from blowing up b/c the pilot is a CS idiot...But I would like a no hud difficulty option along with a no "target dot in vehicles" option as well.
This would make helicopter rocket targeting less accurate or more realistic. (Like how those helicopters in We Were Soldiers had those "iron sights")
The 'CS idiot' would crash the chopper if the controls consisted of two buttons, stop and start. The best solution is to make the piloting at least semi-realistic, so that you only get in vehicles with people you trust.
-
Well, just my idea, I think that having easier pilot huds ect would prevent helicopters full of passengers from blowing up b/c the pilot is a CS idiot...But I would like a no hud difficulty option along with a no "target dot in vehicles" option as well.
This would make helicopter rocket targeting less accurate or more realistic. (Like how those helicopters in We Were Soldiers had those "iron sights")
The 'CS idiot' would crash the chopper if the controls consisted of two buttons, stop and start. The best solution is to make the piloting at least semi-realistic, so that you only get in vehicles with people you trust.
-
Well i'm 18 so it doesn't matter to meIt does though- what if this type of shite leads to games rated over 18 not being sold in shops. That would include OFP2, and probably any other game you want in the future, which would mean companies would stop making so many of them.
-
Yes there are striking similarities and it shouldn't be dismissed just because as games players we don't like it.Balls. It is not being dismissed because we don't like it (although we don't) - its being dismissed because its nonsense.
Some greek elders tried to get a ban on popular music of the time in about 62 BCE 'because they caused a lowering of morals' etc.
When photography was available to the masses, it was claimed to cause the same things.
When cinema took off, it was claimed to cause the same things.
When home television took off, it was claimed to cause the same things.
When home video recorders became commercially available, it was claimed to cause the same things.
Now the whiney 'conservative' (as in 'dont want things to change') types are claiming the same utter shite about games.
-
Bn880, how did you manage to see the game after it wasn't working.For me I had port forwarding set up for another machine, which was blocking this client. If you are a simple client on a router trying to play OFP, disable forwarding on OFP ports and it should work, otherwise you are being blocked by CIA server.
Thanks! I'm not sure which are the OFP ports though: AFAIR its UDP 2234?
Disabled all port forwarding anyway; didnt work. Still can't/ couldn't see server, or CIA homepage.
-
And the more sensible side of the story, from another BBC source
Experts have warned against a knee-jerk reaction after the parents of a murdered teenager blamed his killer's obsession with a violent video game.
-
Gordy's right.
As well as that; if a child plays a game rated too old for him/ her, whose fault is that? The game companies?
NO, its the lazy, irresponsible PARENTS fault.
All this is is an excuse for shitty parenting.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost
in OFFTOPIC
Posted
You play games in third person but complain about this?