It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PC Do Gooders Strike Again

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
This is a bit like being able to kill children in video games. Bethesda games have always made children unkillable but modders always remove that limitation. I don't exactly buy the argument it's because they were aboriginals and not some unnamed tribe because there are many games where you have to kill Chinese people or Russians or some named race of people. I think the main issue with aboriginals is that they were treated extremely badly when the British first invaded Australia. Their land and their children were taken from them and they were made into slaves. On top of that is the fact that Australia is much more PC than they claim to be. Blocking R rated video games for years, making cigarette packaging nothing but disturbing images of dying people, etc. If you ask me that PC-ness was carried over to Australia by the British. Just look at the level of PC in places like the UK, they even have laws against online trolls.
edit on 16/1/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a survival game set in Australia has been removed from online stores


1. Your source doesn't back this up... How do you know it's being pulled from online stores? There is a petition to do so, but I cannot find where it's been successful.
2. Stores are free to sell what they want to.
3. This is the free market at work, as Introvert said.


edit on 1/16/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Chadwickus

What if there's a game where you play as a terrorist? Would that be going too far?


In a sense in a game like that, you can choose to play as a terrorist. That's the point of open sandbox survival games. It's how you choose to play.

You and your group of buddies can get in game, gang up, and terrorize everyone else playing. This is not new behavior, either, it's been happening as long as there has been PvP in games.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But wouldn't certain kind of terrorism (considering what is happening) be going too far for some people? (Not like I would care).



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders


The main problem I have with this type of video game is not really that it exists. Rather, that I know there will be people exposed to it who have a lot of fuzzy boundaries in their heads between reality and fantasy.

While my libertarian nature wants maximum freedom, my rational mind wants that tempered with sanity. I don't really know how well freedom is served when a 7 year old with a crack (Or whatever) addicted single mother is playing games like this with absolutely no guidance. We have to live in the same world this kids will inhabit when they grow up.

I can't help but think about how a lot of the BS that goes on in today's world is caused by people who had very little guidance as children. I'm in my 40s so I was just the right age when the Atari system was at it's most popular and Nintendo was really starting to take off. My generation was really the first to be seriously touched by video games.


bump

This might be the very first time I have agreed with you, and it's definitely the first time I starred or responded.
Not that I want a medal - but, there seems to be a site-wide calming, and increased willingness to hear out the other side.

That's a really GOOD thing!!


ETA: I think bad thoughts when I see kids who are 4, 5, 6.....under 12, let's say, at theatres showing exteme violence, CGI, music that bombards the ears, teenagers fighting for survival, mobster movies..........their parents have brought them there. ?? Really?!!!!

Their parents have brought them there?
I find that very irresponsible.
edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Considering there is a game on the market right now that lets you play as a mass shooter whose only mission is to kill as many innocent people as you can, you tell me. You can buy it on Steam. The only reason it doesn't have more press is because it actually is a crappy game underneath the premise.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

But wouldn't certain kind of terrorism (considering what is happening) be going too far for some people? (Not like I would care).


I believe in Fallout New Vegas if you choose to play an evil character you can blow up entire towns. That is basically the definition of terrorism. But people don't get upset about that because it's set in a fictional game world. Maybe it would be a different story if someone made a game where you have to play the role of an actual terrorist and you could attack places in the real world. Imagine if they made it so detailed that you could recruit new fighters into your terror group and you could spread propaganda or carry out false flag attacks to boost recruitment numbers. Then you would have to use clever war tactics to take over towns and cities and eventually overthrow entire regimes, and putting your own government agents in place. Do you think people would actually allow a game like that to exist? I have to admit it actually sounds like a pretty fun RTS simulation game. There's really nothing about the idea which would be illegal but it would certainly be controversial.
edit on 16/1/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex


No , the Actual deed of killing isn't OK but killing in a game is because nobody actually dies , the killing in this game is in context with the players attempts to survive in an hostile environment , killing of humans is an option not a requirement.

I stand by what I wrote , the only reason this game has been singled out over similar survival games in the genre is the inclusion of Aborigines , if they were an unnamed tribe of cannibals we wouldn't be discussing the game because there would be no story.



I think you have been mistaken as to what I actually meant?

I was pointing out that it would seem that some people were less

concerned about the aspect of killing than that the *enemy* in the

game were aboriginal. And as you said above ^^^^ they

could have been cannibals, or indeed a tribe in Africa, the Amazon

or even Peru?

I don't think there is any nation that has not suffered some kind of

oppression or cruelty in the past, it is mo that that is where it should

remain, in the past and not regurgitated at regular intervals.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Maybe but i remember a similar situation of pulling a civil war game because it had a confederate flag in it..... during the civil war.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

In Fallout 3 you can choose to detonate an unexploded A-bomb in one of the main towns, wiping out the inhabitants. The funny part is your paid to do it by a rich fat-cat type to make it look like an accident.

I hope they don't try to ban Fallout 4, considering your player can choose to join the Brotherhood of Steel who are extremely prejudice against Ghouls, Synths and Mutants. If any try to join my settlement I shoot them on sight, only pure blooded humans are allowed in my town!
edit on 16-1-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

im offended



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Considering there is a game on the market right now that lets you play as a mass shooter whose only mission is to kill as many innocent people as you can, you tell me.
Ever heard of Grand Theft Auto?


You can buy it on Steam.The only reason it doesn't have more press is because it actually is a crappy game underneath the premise.

So...do you play this game? Against what standard do you judge it?

Grand Theft Auto was pretty slick......for its time.......

Unaware of which game you are judging, here, though. "War" video-games have been around since the 1950s.





edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Heck in the Mass Effect, you can commit genocide several times if you like. No one gets upset over that either.

But you can destroy the last Rachni queen and eliminate her entire race in Mass Effect 1. If you save her, you get that same choice again in Mass Effect 3.

Depending on your choices, you can opt to cure the Krogan genophage or not. If you don't, it is implied that you have more or less consigned the Krogan to slow extinction (aka genocide). While you didn't inflict the genophage on them, you have it in your power to cure them, too. If you don't cure then and save the Rachni, it is revealed that the Rachni do wipe them out.

At the end of ME2, you wipe out the Collectors - genocide.

Depending on how you play, you are either presented with a choice where you have to wipe out either the Geth or the Quarian race - genocide. Yes, you have to let one kill the other more or less, but it's your decision that decides which one comes out on top. You can play through all three games such that you can broker peace between the two races, but at the end still end up wiping one of the two out at the very end anyhow - genocide.

You can choose to wipe out the Reapers - genocide.

You can opt for Synthesis which rewrites the genetic code of everything in the galaxy more or less making it other than it was. IMO this is the ultimate genocide as every single species that exists instantly ceases to be what it was and becomes something else. GALACTIC GENOCIDE!!



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It's called Hatred.


Hatred

The name pretty much sums it up.

Designed to spark controversy, this depressing game about a sociopath who indiscriminately murders innocent civilians was initially barred from Valve Software’s popular Steam distribution service. Eventually, Valve relented, and while it got a rare AO (Adults Only) rating, Hatred was released on June 1. According to its designers, it’s not just a game about a remorseless killing machine, it’s also an artistic statement about video games and political correctness.

Except it’s also a bad video game. Boring, ugly, and uninventive, its instantly forgettable gameplay was the perfect match for its abhorrent premise. Gamers, naturally, hated it.


No, I don't play it. All I had to do was look at all the worst games lists and videos from multiple sources. Even the ones who aren't going to knock it for subject matter basically say it's mostly a bad game in every other way that counts.

And the reason why I mentioned it at all is because I happened to remember it because it kept popping up on those lists and someone wanted to know if you could play as a terrorist. This is the closest I could remember.

As to GtA, never played that either, but at least I hear it has a storyline to it that involved you playing a hardened criminal. Since I'm not interested in that kind of storyline or causing random chaos, I generally am not interested in games like GtA.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Maybe but i remember a similar situation of pulling a civil war game because it had a confederate flag in it..... during the civil war.



You're right. Apple Removes Games and Apps with Confederate Flag

And everything I said applies in that case, as well:

Stores are free to sell what they want to.
This is the free market at work.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So the free market no longer allows the Civil War in America, but we can fight Nazis and see swastikas all we want in WWII games?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So - right. All of these games started up before you were even a glimmer in your pappy's eye......

Thing is, that was ----wait - not just 20! ---- 30 years ago!!! There were already video games that played out "battles." I got my BA in 1982....(and that was on the 6.5 year plan........I took semesters off to work and earn, to learn about life).....Began college in the fall of '76.

Were you even around back then? I mean, KU vs KSU - ala late 70s.....quite the rivalry.



So - were you around in ...say, 1979 ???????


Galaxians, for example. Ask your mom and dad if they remember Galaxians.



edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't even understand what you attempted point is.

If it's that you think I hate video games, you don't know as much about me as you think you do.

edit on 16-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Uh...I'm asking you questions.
You are talking about video games that are violent, as if you know everything about them.

I am saying that 'video games' now are just the offspring of the 'video games' that emerged in the 70s......(even earlier than that, in fact - but - I don't expect you to fact-check the history.)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

edit on 1/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: edit




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join