Video game idea?

[jadin]

I agree it's not the games fault for making us recreate it. However, the game enabled us to by it's choices of what to include in the game. For example a sniper rifle is not a normal requiste for stealing cars.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

So what you are saying, Jadin, is that it was really the game's fault for putting the temptation in your way?
That's a bit like saying 'I wouldn't have commited the murder if the gun manufacturer hadn't made a gun that shot real bullets'.
You went out and bought the game - no one forced you to do that. And then you used the game to recreate something in a way that the game designer had not envisaged. So who is really to blame? I accept that the game put temptation in your way, but you are ultimately responsible for your behaviour and actions.
I just cannot believe the skued morality people are exhibiting here. A game about shooting JFK - one man - is not acceptable, but a game about WWII, where tens of millions of people died or were maimed, is perfectly alright?
If one is acceptable then the other must be too!

 

[jadin]

Not at all.

It's nothing like saying without the gun I wouldn't have commited murder. If however guns were made with absolute no other reason than to murder then yes it would be the same. There is no "dear" or "wolfs" to shoot in grand theft auto. There is nothing to defend, nothing to protect. The only reason the weapons are in the game is to kill people, police officers, hits etc. There is no "alternative".

So yes, the game is to blame for expecting you to use weapons provided to you in a certain way. I don't see any difference between what they did envision for you to do, versus what we chose to do.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Not at all.

It's nothing like saying without the gun I wouldn't have commited murder. If however guns were made with absolute no other reason than to murder then yes it would be the same. There is no "dear" or "wolfs" to shoot in grand theft auto. There is nothing to defend, nothing to protect. The only reason the weapons are in the game is to kill people, police officers, hits etc. There is no "alternative".

So yes, the game is to blame for expecting you to use weapons provided to you in a certain way. I don't see any difference between what they did envision for you to do, versus what we chose to do.

You miss the point and misquote me. What I said was: 'I wouldn't have commited the murder if the gun manufacturer hadn't made a gun that shot real bullets' which is not at all the same as saying 'without the gun I wouldn't have commited murder'. The gun enables you to commit a murder but it does not make you commit it.
And if guns are not made to kill things, then what are they made for? (murder and killing are merely semantic differences - defense and protection are merely justifications for killing) They appear in the game as they do in real life but in both instances you do not have to use them!
There is a world of difference between what people want us to do and what we choose to do. If that were not the case no laws would ever get broken.
The point I was trying to make was that we have to take sole responsibility for our actions, and that morals and ethics are not things we can pick up or discard to suit ourselves.

 

[jadin]

Regardless. Your analogy isn't quite right. The difference isn't rubber bullets versus real bullets. The difference is a company who makes armor piercing bullets (aka cop killer bullets). Since dear and antelope don't wear kevlar, what purpose do armor piercing bullets serve, save to kill people wearing armor?

The point is companies who provide this sort of entertainment very well can be blamed for what they encourage. While I'm all for games, many games are aimed at children who are still shaping their morals, ethics etc.

I have to ask... "WHAT responsibility?" If by taking sole responsibility for my actions, I am to go to the police station and report that I killed innocent people in a video game I would be laughed at. If I tried to do the same thing in game, nothing would happen. The point is there is no responsibility to be taken in the virtual world.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Regardless. Your analogy isn't quite right. The difference isn't rubber bullets versus real bullets. The difference is a company who makes armor piercing bullets (aka cop killer bullets). Since dear and antelope don't wear kevlar, what purpose do armor piercing bullets serve, save to kill people wearing armor?

The point is companies who provide this sort of entertainment very well can be blamed for what they encourage. While I'm all for games, many games are aimed at children who are still shaping their morals, ethics etc.

I have to ask... "WHAT responsibility?" If by taking sole responsibility for my actions, I am to go to the police station and report that I killed innocent people in a video game I would be laughed at. If I tried to do the same thing in game, nothing would happen. The point is there is no responsibility to be taken in the virtual world.

Your response shows that you are still missing the point - and by rather a lot.
In reply to your last question 'what responsibility?', quite clearly it is the responsibility for choosing to buy a game, choosing to play it and choosing what you do in the game.
If you went to the police to confess to a crime commited in that game you would indeed be stupid - but you would be responsible for making yourself look foolish.
And if any parent allowed their child to have access to material that was unsuitable then that parent would be failing in their responsibility to their child.

 

[Mitica100]

Hmm. Think you might upset one or two people over here - the tabloid press has almost beatified her.
You could have a crack at shooting Tony Blair, though. For real I mean. We wouldn't mind...

:smileys: :smileys: :smileys:

 

[havoc]

There is a huge difference between a game based on carrying out the assasination of JFK and a general WWII game. In a WWII game you aren't leading a German bombing run on the city of Coventry, and you aren't gassing people in concentration camps. Your also not trying to steal the Enigma code. Specifics are left out in the game for a reason. Its sensitivity to real life events. Now planning the assasination of one man (that is a real life person) sitting in the book depository and waited to see if you can pop off 5-6 shots in 30 seconds is distastful.
Hey maybe the game allows you to live the conspiracy theory and park snipers on the grassy knoll as well. Maybe the final level of the game is to run thru the streets of Dallas hiding from cops and shooting the ones that get in your way. Or maybe there is a secret level where you get to try and dodge Jack Ruby's bullets.
Its just distastful and degrading to live in a society where we find this entertaining.

 

[mrsid99]

Regardless. Your analogy isn't quite right. The difference isn't rubber bullets versus real bullets. The difference is a company who makes armor piercing bullets (aka cop killer bullets). Since dear and antelope don't wear kevlar, what purpose do armor piercing bullets serve, save to kill people wearing armor?

Now there's someone who has no idea of what he speaks and just listens to the liberal media BS!
The so-called "cop killer" bullets made by KTW were teflon coated and thereby gave a slightly higher muzzle velocity than standard pistol rounds and could penetrate body armor at close range.
Teflon coated rifle rounds are still freely available however, guess people don't shoot at police with rifles.
For reference, to the best of my knowledge no cop has ever been shot at and far less killed with a KTW round, just another way to back door legislate firearms ownership out of existence.
Most pistol rounds lack the energy to penetrate body armor however, a round nosed .357 can and likewise a round nosed .44 magnum which is why they're not a standard offering from ammunition manufacturers. There's another little point that's being missed as well, just about any center fire spitzer point rifle round will penetrate body armor and that includes common hunting rifles such as .308 or 30-06 with or without teflon coating.

The point is companies who provide this sort of entertainment very well can be blamed for what they encourage. While I'm all for games, many games are aimed at children who are still shaping their morals, ethics etc.

I have to ask... "WHAT responsibility?" If by taking sole responsibility for my actions, I am to go to the police station and report that I killed innocent people in a video game I would be laughed at. If I tried to do the same thing in game, nothing would happen. The point is there is no responsibility to be taken in the virtual world.