I jumped to the bottom of this thread, so this may be a bit off topic....but I was just wondering if anyone else..occasionly confuses reality with games (for only a brief millisecond of course)

I remember after basically living for 2 months in Ultima Online, I would sometimes think to cast spells at certain times in RL.

For instance, I was skiing and I saw a group of snowboarders making trouble and for a brief second thought I
would cast a fire wall on them as they were all grouped together.

Alright, now i''m either a nut or a real hardcore gamer , but on a serious note...I wonder...as technology increases and people are able to become more and more immersed in games...if people will accidently do things is real life thinking it was a game.

I mean with hmds, ultrarealistic graphics and sound,, and who knows what else...what''s to say that someone won''t suddently take a sharp swerv on the highway, thinking for a second it was a driving game.

-Tim Yarosh
Lucid Games
www.lucidgames.net

The driving game example is a very real one. I occasinally catch myself slipping into game mode on long trips thinking (only very, very briefly) what it would be like to take a swift right turn off a bridge.
It doesn''t help that I work 9-5 (and then some) on a driving game for my company. The more realistic the game gets the more hazy the line between staring at a small screen (that takes up most of your view) and staring at a windscreen. I keep on getting the urge to use the handbrake way to much for tight turns in RL because of the way the car handles in the game.

I have to say though...looking out my window at the suburban London traffic I don''t think my AI drives that badly at all :o)

Mike

I agree with most of what you said, but I''ll address the parts where I don''t:

quote: Original post by stimarco

Yes, parents can make mistakes. So what? The fault still lies with the parents. You''re supposed to *learn* from your mistakes, not cop out and blame them on someone else. It''s not our fault if a father leaves a large, loaded rifle on their bed and their bedroom door unlocked so their toddler can walk in and play. All it takes is common sense; something that appears to be in increasingly short supply.

Learning from one''s mistakes is all well and good, but I think a child''s (or an adult''s) death is just a little too serious to be put down to trial and error, no?

I think, however, the toddler example is not a good one: in this case, the kid would just be playing, and is unlikely to be a FPS expert. Whereas I am addressing more the situations where a person actively chooses to shoot someone for some reason.

quote: Should countries like the UK be deprived of first-person shooters just because the citizens of the USA can''t be bothered to keep their artillery under lock and key?

Well, no. I have already said I don''t favour censorship. But there is a sliding scale from ''acceptable'' violence to ''unacceptable'' violence. I think Doom, for example, is unlikely to be as much of an influence as you never kill anything truly human. Whereas at the other end of the scale, you have things like Soldier Of Fortune, which looks like a great game, but I''m sure it could be a little disturbing... and some sick kid may well want to see what real-life ''gore zones'' are...

I also mentioned above that these issues are a problem with society, rather than with games as such. As you know, we in the UK have the same movies, music, games as the US. But we kill far fewer people. The problem is primarily down to other social values. This doesn''t remove the chance that video games may be a factor in violence. It may just be that here in the UK, we are not violent enough for the games to tip us over the edge.

quote: Every time a censor removes a choice from you, it means a wall is replacing a door. That door gives freedom of choice: you can open it if you want to see what''s on the other side, or leave it closed if you don''t like the sound of all that screaming.

Some people don''t know what''s good for them, and will step through the door regardless. Sadly, often in these cases, it''s not the people who made that mistake who are the worse off for it - it''s their victims who suffer.

quote: Art is about creating new doors. Nobody is forcing you to open them.

If every adult was mature enough to both make those choices, and was responsible enough not to take out their frustrations on innocent 3rd parties, I''d agree totally.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Any child that goes off and kills people BECAUSE OF a violent game they played is so maladjusted that they should have been institutionalized a long time prior.

If you think it is easy to spot who is maladjusted that easily, then you are very wrong. But again, I don''t believe I said anyone killed ''because'' of a computer game. The computer game may have contributed to violent instincts, or desensitized them to violence, taught them violence is an effective way of resolving disputes, or perhaps even made them more efficient at being violent.

quote: I put it to you that eliminating all violence in computer games will not stop school or any other form of actual violence.

I agree that it will not stop it. I put it to you that it would reduce it.

quote:
If people can''t take responsibility for their actions (and note that this includes the act of having a child), then we''re collectively screwed. Every time an institution is charged with exercising responsibility on behalf of the people, the people suffer.

Guess what? Game developers are people too. There''s more to preventing violence than watching a child 24/7. No amount of control will prevent people acting violently if you''re indoctrinating people with it. The key is to not teach them these things in the first place.

hey, theres a game develpment project in singapore abt writing non violent games ... no violence in it at all !
However, some doubt that it will ever be interesting (It has to be a 3D action game)

Sunandshadow I think it''s perfectly okay to have adult storylines in games. The concept of having a design with a pivotal part of the plot concerning something as deeply unpleasant as rape is not unthinkable and if told well can have a positive effect on the player.
I wrote a long post regarding what it is about different game types that make it okay to have a game about slaughtering people (unreal tournament/half-life) but not about rape. I came to the conclusion that it''s the mentality behind how you derive the fun (or at least the experience, games don''t have to be fun, horror movies aren''t really _fun_ but they are a good experience) not the plot that the fun revolves around.
(btw I ended up not posting this message, maybe I will later)
I don''t think it would be okay to have an FPS style game revolving around being a serial killer in the same way that I don''t think it would be okay to have a game revolving around being a serial rapist. The kind of enjoyment you get from an FPS is one of adrenaline not cold hearted killing which forgives a lot of it''s graphic nature.
There is no design that I can think of where it''s reasonable to use rape as it''s main plotline if you play the antagonist because the only kind of enjoyment you can get out of that is one that should not be found in computer games (IMHO).

The one problem in your game design is due to capitalism and the demographic of game players. Game players, or at least a large proportion of them, are under 18 and a rape centralized plotline would not be allowed to sell to that group. I would imagine that would put a lot of people off to start with before you even got to the fact that it''s a new, unproven, game concept which puts most publishers off straight away.

I''m not writing this to put you off though and you have my best wishes in trying to get this design through.

Mike