Yeah, it's a listicle
still curious what y'all think...
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/23-of-the-most-controversial-video-games/
In all honesty, I never understood how people can get their panties in a wad over a game. It's fiction; it's not real, for chrissakes. It's all pixels and algorithms. Most of these idiots are just looking for something to be offended by so they can feel better about themselves when they scream on Twitter or other social media. Same with news agencies blaming video games for violence in the world. Ugh. ::)
There's only one or two that I actually can understand the hate on - ironically enough, Hatred is one of them. That game, sort of like Postal, has zero filters about what it is and portrays. I bought the game myself on sale some time ago, but it's pretty meh gameplay wise, so I didn't spend much time with it. (And I remember people getting all offended over Postal back in the day, too.)
I remember Kingpin: Life of Crime. I played that one all the way through. It was probably the first hyper-violent game I ever played and the story was engaging, sort of the way that Goodfellas was engaging.
Anyway, my bottom line with this kind of thing is that they're games, they're fictional, they're not real. There's PLENTY of real death and violence in the world to get pissy about, and using up your energy to take it out on a bunch of 0010101010101s is the epitome of stupid.
Yeah I'm mostly in the same boat as BC. Besides a couple of games who were created to solely be offensive (Custer, Hatred, Nighttrap and surprisingly not on the list Rapelay, at least I think that was the name) I do not think having questionable content would consider it controversial. Especially if it is marked with an age appropriate rating.
The original wasteland had a three legged hooker and final fantasy 6 (3 in the US) dealt with genocide, genetic manipulation, teen pregnancy among other topics and not too much outcry.
I remember the Call of Duty 2 airport mission didn't sit well with me. I didn't shoot any of the civilians, it still let you through the mission.
Quote from: Tuna on July 26, 2017, 07:59:27 AM
I remember the Call of Duty 2 airport mission didn't sit well with me. I didn't shoot any of the civilians, it still let you through the mission.
That is one I agree with that it wasn't necessary. You could have a had it as a slide show abstraction and had the message conveyed just as well.
Is JFK Reloaded on the list? Was mildly entertaining but it isn't difficult to see why it would be regarded as tasteless and offensive.
^ Yep, JFK Reloaded is on the list. I'd not heard of it before this list.
As for that mission in CoD 2, I get the negativity, but again, I stick to my argument that it's just a game. I think at first I thought "holy hell that's messed up," but then I actually played through it. Once you start engaging the cops it becomes a bit more of a challenge rather than just mowing down e-civilians. And since my sense of humor is warped I thought it was funny when someone posted a video of that scene with "Don't Stop Me Now" by Queen playing through it.
Oh my.
I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.
I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.
Brought you by SJW pansification :clap:
Quote from: BanzaiCat on July 26, 2017, 08:40:06 AM
^ Yep, JFK Reloaded is on the list. I'd not heard of it before this list.
As for that mission in CoD 2, I get the negativity, but again, I stick to my argument that it's just a game. I think at first I thought "holy hell that's messed up," but then I actually played through it. Once you start engaging the cops it becomes a bit more of a challenge rather than just mowing down e-civilians. And since my sense of humor is warped I thought it was funny when someone posted a video of that scene with "Don't Stop Me Now" by Queen playing through it.
Yes but kids play this crap to and then become desensitized. I remember being shocked in the 80s when my nephew thought it was cool when the space shuttle blew up, because there was a teacher on board. As kids in the 60s we had respect for tragic incidents.
Quote from: Tuna on July 26, 2017, 09:47:27 AM
Quote from: BanzaiCat on July 26, 2017, 08:40:06 AM
^ Yep, JFK Reloaded is on the list. I'd not heard of it before this list.
As for that mission in CoD 2, I get the negativity, but again, I stick to my argument that it's just a game. I think at first I thought "holy hell that's messed up," but then I actually played through it. Once you start engaging the cops it becomes a bit more of a challenge rather than just mowing down e-civilians. And since my sense of humor is warped I thought it was funny when someone posted a video of that scene with "Don't Stop Me Now" by Queen playing through it.
Yes but kids play this crap to and then become desensitized. I remember being shocked in the 80s when my nephew thought it was cool when the space shuttle blew up, because there was a teacher on board. As kids in the 60s we had respect for tragic incidents.
No offense, but your nephew just sounds like a dickhead. I was a kid when the challenger blew up and we definitely didn't think it was "cool".
Quote from: Tuna on July 26, 2017, 09:47:27 AM
Yes but kids play this crap to and then become desensitized. I remember being shocked in the 80s when my nephew thought it was cool when the space shuttle blew up, because there was a teacher on board.
I don't
ever remember anyone being anything less than reverential and respectful toward the Challenger explosion, and I still talk about it 3-4x/year (minimum) because we use the Reagan address to the nation after the explosion in the Public Speaking classes I teach.
I still can't help but feel awful anytime I see footage from the Challenger disaster. I didn't watch the launch but we heard about it while I was in class (World History, I remember it well).
I do remember the tasteless jokes that followed, too. Humor is something of a coping mechanism, so I laughed like everyone else.
I'm not convinced that pixelated slaughter causes desensitization; I really think anyone that has a gun put in their hand and told to go mow down a bunch of people at the airport should have the basic humanity to get sick to their stomach at the thought. There's been more than a few exceptions to this (Klebold and Harris, and so on), but these people were already fucked in the head. Games don't cause people to become psychopaths; they were already that way to begin with.
I was in high school when the Challenger was lost. None of us thought it was 'cool'. There was announcement on the PA and the teacher turned on the TV in study hall. There was lots of stunned silence and "Oh My God".
That's new for me too...never met anyone who thought the Challenger exploding was cool. My 6th grade class was shocked in to silence, a rarity.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 26, 2017, 09:20:49 AM
I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.
I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.
I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.
Zizek about people who play video games... ;)
He wasn't/isn't a dickhead. He has grown into a fine man. He just didn't realize what he was saying at 8 years old. He didn't think about what really happened that day. Don't worry, I scolded the he'll out of him that day!
Quote from: Phantom on July 26, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 26, 2017, 09:20:49 AM
I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.
I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.
I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.
With the need for distance (if there is such a thing)...you'd think the most distant wars would be the most popular. It's true there's a lot of Kadesh out there and an over-abundance of Pelopoenisian Wars...but nothing at all about the Venus War Complex of 6th and 7th Century MesoAmerica. Could it be that the human-sacrifice thing is a bit much? Sure, But the Venus War Complex was actually far less human-sacrifice oriented than the Mexica/Aztec Empire. So it sort of doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote from: MengJiao on July 26, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: Phantom on July 26, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 26, 2017, 09:20:49 AM
I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.
I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.
I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.
With the need for distance (if there is such a thing)...you'd think the most distant wars would be the most popular. It's true there's a lot of Kadesh out there and an over-abundance of Pelopoenisian Wars...but nothing at all about the Venus War Complex of 6th and 7th Century MesoAmerica. Could it be that the human-sacrifice thing is a bit much? Sure, But the Venus War Complex was actually far less human-sacrifice oriented than the Mexica/Aztec Empire. So it sort of doesn't make a lot of sense.
I guess its also down to knowledge. If you're familiar with a conflict you're probably more likely to game it as it will be of interest outside of just the game itself. thus for people in the west the most likely subjects may be Greece, Rome, Napoleon & the 20th century as this is history that most of us know about. I must admit bar the odd Shogun game I don't play anything involving much set in the far east or South America, unless it is through some colonial connection. Regardless, they're just games to me.
To look at it another way. Should games (specifically historical) completely ignore controversial subjects.
I.e. The slave trade, the Holocaust, the Vietnam/Cambodian war, the Iran / Iraq war, etc
Quote from: jamus34 on July 27, 2017, 01:50:18 PM
To look at it another way. Should games (specifically historical) completely ignore controversial subjects.
I.e. The slave trade, the Holocaust, the Vietnam/Cambodian war, the Iran / Iraq war, etc
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/brenda-romero/
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 27, 2017, 02:07:09 PM
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/brenda-romero/
Excellent read.
Pac-Man triggers me pretty hard. Ghost lives matter.
Quote from: Phantom on July 27, 2017, 01:05:57 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on July 26, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: Phantom on July 26, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 26, 2017, 09:20:49 AM
I really wish someone would grow some balls and release 6 Days in Fallujah. Why the hell is that so damned controversial anyway? Just because it was developed at a time when the war was still actively being fought? The article claims many veterans objected to its release. I call total bull$hit on that. Anyway, my understanding is the game is complete. It just needs a publisher.
I'd add Syrian Warfare to the list. Its a surprisingly good game, but it is shamelessly biased in a political way and is a great example of recreational gaming software as propaganda.
I agree - I must admit to always being surprised that people feel there must be a time lag between a war & a game about it, it always seems a little bogus to me. Surely a game is more relevant if the game is released nearer to the event. If its in bad taste, surely its just as bad taste 5/10/20 years afterwards?
Take WW2 - we had the holocaust, the Russians losing & killing millions, topping it off by raping their way across Germany, the Japanese butchering Chinese & Koreans with reckless abandon, never mind the prisoner torture, all wrapped up with two Japanese cities being incinerated - fancy a game anyone! - clearly people do as its the most gamed subject on the planet. Once its happened it history, there shouldn't be any hypocritical "reverse statute of limitation" on games.
With the need for distance (if there is such a thing)...you'd think the most distant wars would be the most popular. It's true there's a lot of Kadesh out there and an over-abundance of Pelopoenisian Wars...but nothing at all about the Venus War Complex of 6th and 7th Century MesoAmerica. Could it be that the human-sacrifice thing is a bit much? Sure, But the Venus War Complex was actually far less human-sacrifice oriented than the Mexica/Aztec Empire. So it sort of doesn't make a lot of sense.
I guess its also down to knowledge. If you're familiar with a conflict you're probably more likely to game it as it will be of interest outside of just the game itself. thus for people in the west the most likely subjects may be Greece, Rome, Napoleon & the 20th century as this is history that most of us know about. I must admit bar the odd Shogun game I don't play anything involving much set in the far east or South America, unless it is through some colonial connection. Regardless, they're just games to me.
I agree that "controversy" has a lot less impact on what games get built and how than some kind of cultural imagery...I myself prefer things to be kind of twisted but not just a mess of outright slaughter. There was that awful mordor game where you (the player) was some kind of undead thing and you killed an amazing number of Orcs and Uruk-hai. Though there was some kind of structure the whole thing amounted to killing a lot of Orcs and Uruk-hai. Eventually I found that pretty unpleasant. Not really sure why. On a different note...I'm happy with almost any reasonable simulation of Normandy in 1944. There I think it is the dynamic of the fighting -- vicious, murderous -- but intriguing -- as much because of the variety of attempts to simulate or game it as because of the battles themselves, I think. So once there's a few interesting games on a topic (others would be the Desert War in North Africa) then the chance of more games -- usually offereing a slightly different interpretation -- become more likely. So in my view, heavily gamed topics seem to be the more interesting topics just because they are so heavily gamed. There are exceptions --
Hoplite for example seems entertaining in its mysterious isolation as much because of that as because of any intrinsic interest the topic has. Flying Colors -- another favorite -- is kind of intermeiate -- the Age of Sail is moderately well gamed but good games on the topic are mysteriously isolated even so.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412017720359
QuoteMilitary shooters have explored both historical and modern settings and remain one of the most popular game genres. While the violence of these games has been explored in multiple studies, the study of how war and the rules of war are represented is underexplored. The Red Cross has argued that as virtual war games are becoming closer to reality, the rules of war should be included. This article explores the argument put forward by the Red Cross and its reception by games media organizations, in order to consider how the concept of "just war" is represented within games. This article will focus on concerns over games adherence to the criteria of jus in bello (the right conduct in war) and will also consider the challenges that developers face in the creation of entertainment products in the face of publisher and press concerns.
has anybody mentioned carmageddon >:D they made it change to green blood
grand theift auto, if I remember had a lot of bad feeling
^those are both games mentioned in the article from the OP.
I was being controversial and mentioning them again then >:D >:D >:D
Quote from: Tuna on July 26, 2017, 01:14:34 PM
He wasn't/isn't a dickhead. He has grown into a fine man. He just didn't realize what he was saying at 8 years old. He didn't think about what really happened that day. Don't worry, I scolded the he'll out of him that day!
Fine ... but in 1985 we are talking 8 bit computing ... I don't agree with the link between video games now but when it was 8 bit definitely not. Don't know what else you think he had done by 8 to be desensitised enough to think some of ther best amongst us getting blown up was cool- but no way was it down to 8 bit computing .
Quote from: jamus34 on July 27, 2017, 01:50:18 PM
To look at it another way. Should games (specifically historical) completely ignore controversial subjects.
I.e. The slave trade, the Holocaust, the Vietnam/Cambodian war, the Iran / Iraq war, etc
Absolutely not - if it is relevant to the game, and the game is trying to be true to history, it should be included. People might learn something, even if it is an uncomfortable truth.
As with most things these controversial subjects are a matter of taste, but when you consider our wargames are about re-enacting issues of mass killing we're already at the point of being controversial, yet we enjoy them! Ironic isn't it? >:D ;D