It is disappointing to find violent video games on the market that may cause psychological harm to those who play them.>/q> Errm, any proof? Thought not.
Vaz has called for the game to be banned. Not surprised in the least. Hes like our he-who-will-not-be-named, cept hes an MP.
I'm wondering about the accuracy of these reportsace_of_sevensJuly 28 2006, 15:06:57 UTC
A lot of these reports are talking about gameplay in considerably more detail than anythign in the video game press. This leads me to wonder where the details are comign from. I doubt Eidos gave special moral panic screenigns of the game. I suspect they're made up. If not, I think this is a bad move on Eidos's part as it's sure to turn enough people off as to limit their market, not to mention the bad press it will get the industry.
Re: I'm wondering about the accuracy of these reportsgamepoliticsJuly 28 2006, 15:56:51 UTC
yes - I agree. The paragraph that cites the torture in the movie, the ear-cutting, cigar burning... I've yet to see a report of that in the game.
The GameSpot coverage indicates harming hostages as a means to an end. I guess that's not the same as torture for its own sake, as Mr. Blonde does to the poor cop in the movie, but still... it's intentionally harming a defenseless victim. It's going to be a problem, I do believe.
Re: I'm wondering about the accuracy of these reportsnightwng2000July 28 2006, 16:17:49 UTC
We actually see plenty of "torture" of suspects in many TV police shows. We even see prosecutors cross the line of ethics to have the suspect found guilty. And while much of the time, the suspect IS guilty, there have been a few times where they weren't and they were still abused by officers and others as well, just to try to find them guilty.
For example, I can think of an NYPD Blue episode (I'm pretty sure it was that one and not Law & Order) where a suspect had been shot and the officer made it clear to the suspect that if they didn't tell where one of their victims was, the suspect wasn't going to get medical attention.
To be honest, it is scenes like that in TV shows and hearing of corrupt law enforcement and judicial personnel that make me so wary of the legal system these days. If there weren't the unethical acts commited by the real personnel, I wouldn't be so bothered. But then, I truly believe if the real ones weren't doing it, there would be no reference point to depict it in fiction.
Re: I'm wondering about the accuracy of these reportsjahbulonJuly 28 2006, 23:05:38 UTC
This may not be anything new in terms of general artistic expression, but it is new in the realm of video games. It's not exactly the content that's a problem, it's the timing: releasing a video game involving acts that can be interpreted as torture while the entire video game industry is being attacked by morally paranoid governments, well, it's just not that smart a move.
From some of the gameplay videos i've seen, you can grab a guy and use him as a human shield, and then shoot said person in the head when you don't need them. I've seen civies in some of the demos, so I guess you can use a civilian as a shield.
You could also do it in the bloodless "Goldeneye: Rogue Agent"... Well, there was sorta blood - weird blue smoke-type stuff would inexplicably pour from people you shot.
Then again, they're not the firstjabrwockJuly 28 2006, 15:21:55 UTC
The Punisher game already had torture, although you could only torture the bad guys, but it was quite detailed and gory. And a few other mainstream games have featured torture elements at some point, just not quite so graphic. And usually it's someone other than the player administering it.
I think the BBFC did the right thing. Call it crap, but still allow stores to sell it.
One question for the various police orgs, how does the game promote violence against cops, but the movie not? Where were their protests when the movie came out, or when it went to video?
Then again, at least the police weren't calling for a ban. They just voiced their disgust, which is perfectly reasonable. It's the bandwagon-jumping politicians who turned that disgust into a call for a ban who annoy me. Phil Willis should really think before he opens his yap. My guess is that he'd have a heart attack if he ever walked into a local comic or video store...
Re: Then again, they're not the firstjythieJuly 28 2006, 19:11:56 UTC
although you could only torture the bad guys
I think that is the sticking point. As the op said It sends out the message that the police and authority figures are there to be targeted and dispatched...
In many people's minds, there is a differnce between what 'good' guys can do and what 'bad' guys can do. It is 'ok' for authority figures to use torture (just look at how often light torutre comes up in crime dramas, or how the majority tends to forgive police who torture real suspects in the US), but not 'ok' for citizens to use it.
While not the first time it appeared in games, this is easily one of the more graphic ones, and if its player-controlled then now we're looking at something you normally only see in unrated flash games. A new step in video game violence? Probably. A game that causes only damage to people? Since when are MPs psychologists? Be concerned, but don't ban the damn thing before its released, and certainly don't listen to mister Squirrel Cheeks.
Comments 58
Errm, any proof? Thought not.
Vaz has called for the game to be banned.
Not surprised in the least. Hes like our he-who-will-not-be-named, cept hes an MP.
Reply
Reply
The GameSpot coverage indicates harming hostages as a means to an end. I guess that's not the same as torture for its own sake, as Mr. Blonde does to the poor cop in the movie, but still... it's intentionally harming a defenseless victim. It's going to be a problem, I do believe.
Reply
For example, I can think of an NYPD Blue episode (I'm pretty sure it was that one and not Law & Order) where a suspect had been shot and the officer made it clear to the suspect that if they didn't tell where one of their victims was, the suspect wasn't going to get medical attention.
To be honest, it is scenes like that in TV shows and hearing of corrupt law enforcement and judicial personnel that make me so wary of the legal system these days. If there weren't the unethical acts commited by the real personnel, I wouldn't be so bothered. But then, I truly believe if the real ones weren't doing it, there would be no reference point to depict it in fiction.
Reply
Reply
you can do that in Hitman: Blood Money as well...
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think the BBFC did the right thing. Call it crap, but still allow stores to sell it.
One question for the various police orgs, how does the game promote violence against cops, but the movie not? Where were their protests when the movie came out, or when it went to video?
Then again, at least the police weren't calling for a ban. They just voiced their disgust, which is perfectly reasonable. It's the bandwagon-jumping politicians who turned that disgust into a call for a ban who annoy me. Phil Willis should really think before he opens his yap. My guess is that he'd have a heart attack if he ever walked into a local comic or video store...
Reply
Reply
I think that is the sticking point. As the op said It sends out the message that the police and authority figures are there to be targeted and dispatched...
In many people's minds, there is a differnce between what 'good' guys can do and what 'bad' guys can do. It is 'ok' for authority figures to use torture (just look at how often light torutre comes up in crime dramas, or how the majority tends to forgive police who torture real suspects in the US), but not 'ok' for citizens to use it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment