There are a lot of gamer's under the age of 21/18 that may not be able to pay for loot boxes but what it does is show them that this is the norm and accepted behaviour in video games. So when they do come of age they will be more inclined to spend money on loot boxes. This has to be regulated to protect them from predatorial marketing.
incidentally when it comes to psychological violence something like Clockwork Orange is childs play compared to Beecher's time in OZ (HBO series).
If you want to make a GOOD argument try this instead.
actual violent crimes in the 70s for population was higher then it is today even though film has far more violence now
try that on, it fits a lot better
I've seen the show and it's fairly disturbing I'll admit. Still, the shows I mentioned are just as bad IMO. When I saw them in the 90s it was disturbing though interesting to me. Of course, once I got access to the internet at an early age through dial-up modem I saw some things a person of young age should never have seen and a lot of it was from.
I'm not really arguing for violent and disturbing as much as immature fun movies. To me, immature fun movies have some action, violence, perhaps a little nudity, people doing stupid immature things and acting like asses, etc. I always liked the ridiculous movies in the 90s like Gone in 60 sixty seconds, Con Air, Speed, etc. They are just examples. Then there are movies like The Howling 2, Friday the 13th part 2, Gremlins, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and many more.
you would be better served just making the point that there are more violent crimes in the 70s then today.
your barking up a tree that the vast majority of people would find completely silly. I know you can have your out of 'imo' but seriously, 10 mins of watching a person have their back skin pulled out while alive is more intense then anything I have ever seen from the friggin 70s
Have you ever seen grindhouse flicks or Italian flicks from the 70s. There weren't mainstream, but they were pretty sick and violent.
I think that later point is everything. They were not mainstream. When open up Netflix sometimes i am in the mood for something that is NOT violent. That is not easy to even find these days.
Sorry but suggesting that mainstream TV and movies in the 70s was anywhere remotely near as violent as TV and movies today is just being in denial frankly. sorry it just wasnt.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I agree with some of the points made but the government adding more regulation? No thanks! Much of what happens in the on line space or otherwise is trade and governed by the FTC already. Don't like a lack of a release date? Don't buy.
If any of these companies are deliberately misleading (and I think some of them are) then they should be subject to review. The problem with the FTC is they have to elect to go after an entity.
Thus far, there has not been enough to make them interested. Something that funds to the level of Star Citizen might change that.
Don't get me wrong, I would rather pay a monthly sub and I deplore loot boxes but I am in the minority it seems.
We can send a message by simply not playing/funding something that doesn't work for us. I'm looking forward to Ashes of Creation for example as it looks like a quality game with a monthly sub and regular content updates. Did I fund them? Nope. I have decided to done with Kickstarter and similar platforms for anyone without a track record.
Companies that have delivered will get my support. I'm still going back to the Divinity series and Wasteland because those games and their respective development teams delivered (Larian & In exile) I backed Crowfall and it looks like that was a good call. Again, I based that on the vision and track record of the development team. Underworld Ascendant has taken longer than expected to release but that team is solid and we should see it this year.
I made a mistake with Richard Garriott's mess ( I tried playing it twice and uninstalled it) and Star Citizen (Full disclosure - they refunded me) and I'm in the camp that Chronicles of Elyria will be vaporware. Shame on me for funding them; I was taken in by the hype and their misleading Kickstarter. (They indicated they were further along than they were and had previous financing that had taken care of the core development) They get credit for driving the nail in my crowdfunding coffin.
Fool me once....or in my case I guess more than once...
The thing is, that as a species violence is in our blood, its genetic.
As a species we adore violence, our whole history on this planet is completely mired in it.
everytime this topic comes up everyone tries to justify it with themselves.
I personally dont care. you dont have to convince me.
I just want more variety, I know from personal experience that a game can be MORE compelling without violence depending on how its designed compared to something else and how its designed. Same is true for high drama. my concern is that we have a generation of people who THINK that violence and gore is required for high drama and good gaming, but its not.
That all said, as it relates to the OP.
Its ironic to be SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is a Murder Simulator
and not seeing that moral irony despite ones one morality is very odd
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
incidentally when it comes to psychological violence something like Clockwork Orange is childs play compared to Beecher's time in OZ (HBO series).
If you want to make a GOOD argument try this instead.
actual violent crimes in the 70s for population was higher then it is today even though film has far more violence now
try that on, it fits a lot better
I've seen the show and it's fairly disturbing I'll admit. Still, the shows I mentioned are just as bad IMO. When I saw them in the 90s it was disturbing though interesting to me. Of course, once I got access to the internet at an early age through dial-up modem I saw some things a person of young age should never have seen and a lot of it was from.
I'm not really arguing for violent and disturbing as much as immature fun movies. To me, immature fun movies have some action, violence, perhaps a little nudity, people doing stupid immature things and acting like asses, etc. I always liked the ridiculous movies in the 90s like Gone in 60 sixty seconds, Con Air, Speed, etc. They are just examples. Then there are movies like The Howling 2, Friday the 13th part 2, Gremlins, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and many more.
you would be better served just making the point that there are more violent crimes in the 70s then today.
your barking up a tree that the vast majority of people would find completely silly. I know you can have your out of 'imo' but seriously, 10 mins of watching a person have their back skin pulled out while alive is more intense then anything I have ever seen from the friggin 70s
Have you ever seen grindhouse flicks or Italian flicks from the 70s. There weren't mainstream, but they were pretty sick and violent.
I think that later point is everything. They were not mainstream. When open up Netflix sometimes i am in the mood for something that is NOT violent. That is not easy to even find these days.
Sorry but suggesting that mainstream TV and movies in the 70s was anywhere remotely near as violent as TV and movies today is just being in denial frankly. sorry it just wasnt.
I have to disagree. I think violent TV today is either is rare. Most shows I watch it shows a skinny woman flipping around kicking people, a course on family values, a course on how to treat others well, and a couple gay people saving the day and kissing. None of this is wrong, but it's the majority of content out there. Even the violent movies find a way to try and teach a lesson about family and morality. I find them to be a joke by comparison to things I've seen from the past. I don't see many violent movies on Netflix unless you are saying things like Marvel comics movies. I haven't seen much on Netflix that bothers me in terms of violence. Sometimes I turn it off because violence is done is such a boring and drab way in modern films anyway. The bad guys aren't really bad. The good guys are often too good. It's not very interesting to me.
incidentally when it comes to psychological violence something like Clockwork Orange is childs play compared to Beecher's time in OZ (HBO series).
If you want to make a GOOD argument try this instead.
actual violent crimes in the 70s for population was higher then it is today even though film has far more violence now
try that on, it fits a lot better
I've seen the show and it's fairly disturbing I'll admit. Still, the shows I mentioned are just as bad IMO. When I saw them in the 90s it was disturbing though interesting to me. Of course, once I got access to the internet at an early age through dial-up modem I saw some things a person of young age should never have seen and a lot of it was from.
I'm not really arguing for violent and disturbing as much as immature fun movies. To me, immature fun movies have some action, violence, perhaps a little nudity, people doing stupid immature things and acting like asses, etc. I always liked the ridiculous movies in the 90s like Gone in 60 sixty seconds, Con Air, Speed, etc. They are just examples. Then there are movies like The Howling 2, Friday the 13th part 2, Gremlins, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and many more.
you would be better served just making the point that there are more violent crimes in the 70s then today.
your barking up a tree that the vast majority of people would find completely silly. I know you can have your out of 'imo' but seriously, 10 mins of watching a person have their back skin pulled out while alive is more intense then anything I have ever seen from the friggin 70s
Have you ever seen grindhouse flicks or Italian flicks from the 70s. There weren't mainstream, but they were pretty sick and violent.
I think that later point is everything. They were not mainstream. When open up Netflix sometimes i am in the mood for something that is NOT violent. That is not easy to even find these days.
Sorry but suggesting that mainstream TV and movies in the 70s was anywhere remotely near as violent as TV and movies today is just being in denial frankly. sorry it just wasnt.
I have to disagree. I think violent TV today is either is rare. Most shows I watch it shows a skinny woman flipping around kicking people, a course on family values, a course on how to treat others well, and a couple gay people saving the day and kissing. None of this is wrong, but it's the majority of content out there. Even the violent movies find a way to try and teach a lesson about family and morality. I find them to be a joke by comparison to things I've seen from the past. I don't see many violent movies on Netflix unless you are saying things like Marvel comics movies. I haven't seen much on Netflix that bothers me in terms of violence. Sometimes I turn it off because violence is done is such a boring and drab way in modern films anyway. The bad guys aren't really bad. The good guys are often too good. It's not very interesting to me.
wow!
even the violence in Breakin Bad would be considered radical in the 70s
wow.....!
I dont know what to say at this point, its just bizzare. we best just move on
incidentally....Rocky Horror Picture show doesnt have any violence in it at all that i recall
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
incidentally when it comes to psychological violence something like Clockwork Orange is childs play compared to Beecher's time in OZ (HBO series).
If you want to make a GOOD argument try this instead.
actual violent crimes in the 70s for population was higher then it is today even though film has far more violence now
try that on, it fits a lot better
I've seen the show and it's fairly disturbing I'll admit. Still, the shows I mentioned are just as bad IMO. When I saw them in the 90s it was disturbing though interesting to me. Of course, once I got access to the internet at an early age through dial-up modem I saw some things a person of young age should never have seen and a lot of it was from.
I'm not really arguing for violent and disturbing as much as immature fun movies. To me, immature fun movies have some action, violence, perhaps a little nudity, people doing stupid immature things and acting like asses, etc. I always liked the ridiculous movies in the 90s like Gone in 60 sixty seconds, Con Air, Speed, etc. They are just examples. Then there are movies like The Howling 2, Friday the 13th part 2, Gremlins, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and many more.
you would be better served just making the point that there are more violent crimes in the 70s then today.
your barking up a tree that the vast majority of people would find completely silly. I know you can have your out of 'imo' but seriously, 10 mins of watching a person have their back skin pulled out while alive is more intense then anything I have ever seen from the friggin 70s
Have you ever seen grindhouse flicks or Italian flicks from the 70s. There weren't mainstream, but they were pretty sick and violent.
I think that later point is everything. They were not mainstream. When open up Netflix sometimes i am in the mood for something that is NOT violent. That is not easy to even find these days.
Sorry but suggesting that mainstream TV and movies in the 70s was anywhere remotely near as violent as TV and movies today is just being in denial frankly. sorry it just wasnt.
I have to disagree. I think violent TV today is either is rare. Most shows I watch it shows a skinny woman flipping around kicking people, a course on family values, a course on how to treat others well, and a couple gay people saving the day and kissing. None of this is wrong, but it's the majority of content out there. Even the violent movies find a way to try and teach a lesson about family and morality. I find them to be a joke by comparison to things I've seen from the past. I don't see many violent movies on Netflix unless you are saying things like Marvel comics movies. I haven't seen much on Netflix that bothers me in terms of violence. Sometimes I turn it off because violence is done is such a boring and drab way in modern films anyway. The bad guys aren't really bad. The good guys are often too good. It's not very interesting to me.
wow!
even the violence in Breakin Bad would be considered radical in the 70s
wow.....!
I dont know what to say at this point, its just bizzare. we best just move on
incidentally....Rocky Horror Picture show doesnt have any violence in it at all that i recall
True, but as I pointed out Violence is only part of the story. I still think I've seen worse things. I pointed out two shows you haven't mentioned. They aren't mainstream, but they were fairly common in cities with sleazy movie theatres. They also became somewhat mainstream with the release of the internet as people posted them online. That and cable TV are actually where I encountered such shows first. The point is there were worse things available to see in the 70s even if it wasn't as accessible. Even in the early 90s it became accessible to a lot of people though as it was posted on the internet either for payment or for free on message boards.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The thing is, that as a species violence is in our blood, its genetic.
As a species we adore violence, our whole history on this planet is completely mired in it.
everytime this topic comes up everyone tries to justify it with themselves.
I personally dont care. you dont have to convince me.
I just want more variety, I know from personal experience that a game can be MORE compelling without violence depending on how its designed compared to something else and how its designed. Same is true for high drama. my concern is that we have a generation of people who THINK that violence and gore is required for high drama and good gaming, but its not.
That all said, as it relates to the OP.
Its ironic to be SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is a Murder Simulator
and not seeing that moral irony despite ones one morality is very odd
Its not a justification, it just is.
"Its ironic to be SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is a Murder Simulator"
How so and what game are we talking about?
Many of these games with these disgusting business models are nonviolent.
The thing is, that as a species violence is in our blood, its genetic.
As a species we adore violence, our whole history on this planet is completely mired in it.
everytime this topic comes up everyone tries to justify it with themselves.
I personally dont care. you dont have to convince me.
I just want more variety, I know from personal experience that a game can be MORE compelling without violence depending on how its designed compared to something else and how its designed. Same is true for high drama. my concern is that we have a generation of people who THINK that violence and gore is required for high drama and good gaming, but its not.
That all said, as it relates to the OP.
Its ironic to be SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is a Murder Simulator
and not seeing that moral irony despite ones one morality is very odd
Its not a justification, it just is.
"Its ironic to be SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is a Murder Simulator"
How so and what game are we talking about?
Many of these games with these disgusting business models are nonviolent.
battlefield Front 2 whatever its called is not violent?
the game everyone went completley nuts about with its microtransactions is not violent?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither completely avoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seem more sensitive to gambling than violence.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make observations and stick to cause and effect. so most of these posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
if one wants to make the argument that selling lootboxes is immoral but murder simulations are, then good luck with that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am very by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make obbervations and stick to cause and effect. so most of this posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
Even if you're playing devil's advocate, they're debating the position you present. Not their own.
And I have you the reasoning. Violence is natural. Gambling is not.
I've been rewatching the Spartacus series on Netflix. Talk about Violence... It's just a sign of the times like sexting and swearing in videos. The pendulum swings back and forth through the years.
The government can't even regulate itself at this point. So if they did video games the companies would lobby to keep things the same just like other regulated companies do.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am very by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make obbervations and stick to cause and effect. so most of this posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
Even if you're playing devil's advocate, they're debating the position you present. Not their own.
And I have you the reasoning. Violence is natural. Gambling is not.
lol...
gambling is not natural? yes it is.
oh this is good. so violence is natural, gaming is not natural. and to you natural is moral?
when did 'natural' come into this discussion. I was talking about morality not nature
now if you excuse me I have some penny stocks to buy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It is also interesting that such concepts arise. For instance, violence is obviously not acceptable in real life. Even in movies violence is often frowned upon these days by the characters in them. It is not cool like with Rocky or Jean Claude Van Dam. There is always a shaming of such characters in modern movies. Any act of violence or bullying is shamed in most movies and TV shows. I think it odd this is the case. Especially in entertainment. I feel like the left have complete control over the media and what people see and think these days. They use it to try and push a message about how things should be and what's right and wrong. I'm not sure this is any different than governmental control in places like China and Russia. It is just in a more subtle and sneaking way. Get the people to believe in certain ideas and then they will peer pressure everyone else into acting this way.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am very by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make obbervations and stick to cause and effect. so most of this posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
Even if you're playing devil's advocate, they're debating the position you present. Not their own.
And I have you the reasoning. Violence is natural. Gambling is not.
lol...
gambling is not natural? yes it is.
oh this is good. so violence is natural, gaming is not natural. and to you natural is moral?
when did 'natural' come into this discussion. I was talking about morality not nature
now if you excuse me I have some penny stocks to buy
If gambling were natural, you'd see it represented in nature. You do not.
And morality and nature are intertwined. The fact that you don't realize that puts you way behind in this conversation.
It is also interesting that such concepts arise. For instance, violence is obviously not acceptable in real life. Even in movies violence is often frowned upon these days by the characters in them. It is not cool like with Rocky or Jean Claude Van Dam. ....
no its ABSOLUTLY cool.
Its very cool. its cooler now then before.
I dont think people are aware of the fact that Battlefront 2 game you shoot people, they die. that is 100% the game.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make observations and stick to cause and effect. so most of these posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
if one wants to make the argument that selling lootboxes is immoral but murder simulations are, then good luck with that.
Your comparing something that has no impact on the physical world (Simulated violence), to selling loot boxes which does have a tangible effect on people, you even supported this by stating that violence levels have dropped since the 70's despite media becoming more violent. When games start charging you a dollar to kill someone then I will start to worry.
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If gambling were natural, you'd see it represented in nature. You do not.
And morality and nature are intertwined. The fact that you don't realize that puts you way behind in this conversation.
you DO..
its been argued that the point of Games in history has always been to test two things.
1. a persons skill against.... 2. randomness
but that aside, nobody was talking about 'natural' until you came. we are talking about 'morality' not 'nature' morality is not nature
what is actually natural and what is considered to be moral are often not the same thing. liying for example, is natural
No, you don't. You're wrong, Sean.
We build morality from the state of nature. Violence is natural. It's unavoidable. Erego, pacifism is a very small portion of the population; the widely accepted morality states that violence should be avoided when possible, but that it's acceptable for the right reason if the situation has no peaceful resolution.
Gambling, as in risking money for the chance to win something, is not at all natural. It requires, first off, that a system of bartering or purchasing be created to give things value. Such currencies don't exist in nature.
Your purposely avoiding the actual point because you can't refute it. Done responding to you, Sean.
It is also interesting that such concepts arise. For instance, violence is obviously not acceptable in real life. Even in movies violence is often frowned upon these days by the characters in them. It is not cool like with Rocky or Jean Claude Van Dam. ....
no its ABSOLUTLY cool.
Its very cool. its cooler now then before.
I dont think people are aware of the fact that Battlefront 2 game you shoot people, they die. that is 100% the game.
Actually, games like Battlefield and Call of Duty are getting worse reviews now, less interest, and more backlash than ever before. When they first started out as a series most people didn't even question the violence in them. Honestly, I feel those games are too realistic for me. Especially the early games in the series. I'm not a big fan of playing through wars. They also throw in political messages like a woman fighting in WW2, but that wasn't the case. They were mostly nurses. There is nothing wrong with that and it's probably a better contribution saving lives than fighting. I'm just pointing out it's more modern jargon. Companies often use it to try and sell games to women and show how forward thinking they are. That means more sales and less backlash.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make observations and stick to cause and effect. so most of these posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
if one wants to make the argument that selling lootboxes is immoral but murder simulations are, then good luck with that.
Your comparing something that has no impact on the physical world (Simulated violence), to selling loot boxes which does have a tangible effect on people, you even supported this by stating that violence levels have dropped since the 70's despite media becoming more violent. When games start charging you a dollar to kill someone then I will start to worry.
I would find it hard to believe that simulated violence has no effect on the physical world. Or are the stories of people who say they killed someone because they got the idea from a movie all making it up?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Comments
They were not mainstream.
When open up Netflix sometimes i am in the mood for something that is NOT violent. That is not easy to even find these days.
Sorry but suggesting that mainstream TV and movies in the 70s was anywhere remotely near as violent as TV and movies today is just being in denial frankly. sorry it just wasnt.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As a species we adore violence, our whole history on this planet is completely mired in it.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If any of these companies are deliberately misleading (and I think some of them are) then they should be subject to review. The problem with the FTC is they have to elect to go after an entity.
Thus far, there has not been enough to make them interested. Something that funds to the level of Star Citizen might change that.
Don't get me wrong, I would rather pay a monthly sub and I deplore loot boxes but I am in the minority it seems.
We can send a message by simply not playing/funding something that doesn't work for us. I'm looking forward to Ashes of Creation for example as it looks like a quality game with a monthly sub and regular content updates. Did I fund them? Nope. I have decided to done with Kickstarter and similar platforms for anyone without a track record.
Companies that have delivered will get my support. I'm still going back to the Divinity series and Wasteland because those games and their respective development teams delivered (Larian & In exile) I backed Crowfall and it looks like that was a good call. Again, I based that on the vision and track record of the development team. Underworld Ascendant has taken longer than expected to release but that team is solid and we should see it this year.
I made a mistake with Richard Garriott's mess ( I tried playing it twice and uninstalled it) and Star Citizen (Full disclosure - they refunded me) and I'm in the camp that Chronicles of Elyria will be vaporware. Shame on me for funding them; I was taken in by the hype and their misleading Kickstarter. (They indicated they were further along than they were and had previous financing that had taken care of the core development) They get credit for driving the nail in my crowdfunding coffin.
Fool me once....or in my case I guess more than once...
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
I personally dont care. you dont have to convince me.
I just want more variety, I know from personal experience that a game can be MORE compelling without violence depending on how its designed compared to something else and how its designed.
Same is true for high drama. my concern is that we have a generation of people who THINK that violence and gore is required for high drama and good gaming, but its not.
That all said, as it relates to the OP.
Its ironic to be SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is a Murder Simulator
and not seeing that moral irony despite ones one morality is very odd
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
even the violence in Breakin Bad would be considered radical in the 70s
wow.....!
I dont know what to say at this point, its just bizzare. we best just move on
incidentally....Rocky Horror Picture show doesnt have any violence in it at all that i recall
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever.
3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Its ironic to be SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is a Murder Simulator"
How so and what game are we talking about?
Many of these games with these disgusting business models are nonviolent.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
the game everyone went completley nuts about with its microtransactions is not violent?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seem more sensitive to gambling than violence.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make observations and stick to cause and effect. so most of these posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
if one wants to make the argument that selling lootboxes is immoral but murder simulations are, then good luck with that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And I have you the reasoning. Violence is natural. Gambling is not.
The government can't even regulate itself at this point. So if they did video games the companies would lobby to keep things the same just like other regulated companies do.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
gambling is not natural? yes it is.
oh this is good. so violence is natural, gaming is not natural. and to you natural is moral?
when did 'natural' come into this discussion. I was talking about morality not nature
now if you excuse me I have some penny stocks to buy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And morality and nature are intertwined. The fact that you don't realize that puts you way behind in this conversation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
its been argued that the point of Games in history has always been to test two things.
1. a persons skill against....
2. randomness
but that aside, nobody was talking about 'natural' until you came. we are talking about 'morality' not 'nature' morality is not nature
what is actually natural and what is considered to be moral are often not the same thing. liying for example, is natural
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
nothing more
nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
We build morality from the state of nature. Violence is natural. It's unavoidable. Erego, pacifism is a very small portion of the population; the widely accepted morality states that violence should be avoided when possible, but that it's acceptable for the right reason if the situation has no peaceful resolution.
Gambling, as in risking money for the chance to win something, is not at all natural. It requires, first off, that a system of bartering or purchasing be created to give things value. Such currencies don't exist in nature.
Your purposely avoiding the actual point because you can't refute it. Done responding to you, Sean.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey