masterchris
Rookie
It's true.
Disappointing...
- Thread starter FlakPanzer
- Start date
FlakPanzer
Rookie
There are some good points here, but I think you're all a little confused to what it means to be a reviewer. I review games for my local newspaper from time to time, just the really big games. You inform people of the good and bad points of the game with as little bias as possible. There is no "the graphics aren't my cup of tea" or "I don't really like this."
People don't trust your opinions, they trust the facts. I personally disliked Halo 2, but I reviewed it as a great game. You have to grin and bear it, to suggest a game that you don't like. Battalion Wars was a good game for anyone with a fleeting interest in the Advance Wars series, or perhaps fans of strategy/action hybrids.
And it's beginning to get on my nerves that people are dodging around the Manifesto post. The fact is, they posted an opinion that seemed more like something a representative from Rockstar or a tobacco company would say. We need to keep these games out of kid's hands, if only to keep the heat off of the developers. You guys seemed to be saying "What? They want to keep sex and violence out of kid's hands? BASTARDS!"
There needs to be some restrictions placed on what people can sell to kids. At their age, they absorb what they can see. The human body only adjusts completely when it turns about 17 years of age, hence the age limit for M-rated games. An EBgames or Gamestop employee is encouraged to sell whatever they can despite their own opinions or morals. I got a guy in trouble at Gamestop because I asked him his opinion on a PSP, to which he told me to wait until more games come out. I don't know if he was right, but he got in trouble by his manager because he flubbed the sale.
Now, about Civ 4. The fact that Civ 4 wasn't reviewed isn't my biggest concern. I own the game, and I reviewed it for another forum, so obviously I don't need your opinions on it. I personally thought it had some ups and downs, one of my major concerns being the visuals for the units. The early units looked great, but the late-game units looked bland and uninspired.
My biggest concern with the reviewing efficiency of the site is the time it takes you to churn out a review. In my experiences, it has taken you guys nearly a week longer than any other site to review games. I came out with a Battlefield 2 review faster than you guys, and it was just me with a controller and a pencil. Battlefield 2 should be able to be reviewed within a matter of hours. It has no story, and there aren't many maps to choose from. You can get through the entire game within about 2 hours, 3 hours if you absorb every bullet.
About the formatting: I feel I may have been a bit harsh. Yes, this is the first major formatting in as long as I can remember. That part, you got me on. But still, you need to remember what you guys are: you're reviewers, not artists. The old format was fine. In exchange, a kick was taken by the reviews.
This isn't yet a bad site, but the quality of the reviews was what drew me to this site over that of IGN and Gamespot, and now they've dropped to that of any other site.
People don't trust your opinions, they trust the facts. I personally disliked Halo 2, but I reviewed it as a great game. You have to grin and bear it, to suggest a game that you don't like. Battalion Wars was a good game for anyone with a fleeting interest in the Advance Wars series, or perhaps fans of strategy/action hybrids.
And it's beginning to get on my nerves that people are dodging around the Manifesto post. The fact is, they posted an opinion that seemed more like something a representative from Rockstar or a tobacco company would say. We need to keep these games out of kid's hands, if only to keep the heat off of the developers. You guys seemed to be saying "What? They want to keep sex and violence out of kid's hands? BASTARDS!"
There needs to be some restrictions placed on what people can sell to kids. At their age, they absorb what they can see. The human body only adjusts completely when it turns about 17 years of age, hence the age limit for M-rated games. An EBgames or Gamestop employee is encouraged to sell whatever they can despite their own opinions or morals. I got a guy in trouble at Gamestop because I asked him his opinion on a PSP, to which he told me to wait until more games come out. I don't know if he was right, but he got in trouble by his manager because he flubbed the sale.
Now, about Civ 4. The fact that Civ 4 wasn't reviewed isn't my biggest concern. I own the game, and I reviewed it for another forum, so obviously I don't need your opinions on it. I personally thought it had some ups and downs, one of my major concerns being the visuals for the units. The early units looked great, but the late-game units looked bland and uninspired.
My biggest concern with the reviewing efficiency of the site is the time it takes you to churn out a review. In my experiences, it has taken you guys nearly a week longer than any other site to review games. I came out with a Battlefield 2 review faster than you guys, and it was just me with a controller and a pencil. Battlefield 2 should be able to be reviewed within a matter of hours. It has no story, and there aren't many maps to choose from. You can get through the entire game within about 2 hours, 3 hours if you absorb every bullet.
About the formatting: I feel I may have been a bit harsh. Yes, this is the first major formatting in as long as I can remember. That part, you got me on. But still, you need to remember what you guys are: you're reviewers, not artists. The old format was fine. In exchange, a kick was taken by the reviews.
This isn't yet a bad site, but the quality of the reviews was what drew me to this site over that of IGN and Gamespot, and now they've dropped to that of any other site.
Joe_Dodson
Rookie
FlakPanzer said:
Ha, noob. It isn't very helpful to say "If you like strategy/action hybrids, you'll like this strategy/action hybrid." Way to match fans to their genres. Did they teach you that at your local newspaper? Because that's precious.
FlakPanzer said:
No, you missed the point. It's absurd to me that a woman would vote to send our country to war, and call pulling out a big mistake, but then turn around and cite violent video games as something we really need to be concerned about. She says violent video games lead to violence, so I want to know what violent video games our government has been playing, because they're responsible for the deaths of at least 2,000 American troops, and over 30,000 Iraqi civilians.
If your reviews are as thoughtful as your forum posts, I can see why they only take you a couple hours.
FlakPanzer
Rookie
Joe_Dodson said:
Congratulations. You've read that entire post, and rather than post an intelligent rebuttal, you pick a single insignificant segment and use it as an excuse to fling insults. And to think, people like you can get driver's licenses in the United States.
Would you care to classify Battalion Wars? It can't be considered a shooter, since theres a large quantity of strategy involved, nor is it a strategy game, at least in the conventional sense.
Joe_Dodson said:
Perhaps you aren't watching the news or have no knowledge of the connection between the military and politics. If you had any knowledge of either, then you would know that even the troops are saying that their job isn't done. These aren't officers sitting comfortably in a tent, these are the infantrymen fighting on the frontlines, the ones watching their friends getting blown to bits by Iraqi IEDs. They've said that they know their job isn't done. But I suppose you know what you're talking about more than a soldier would.
And saying that video games aren't a cause of violence is irresponsible. There have been dozens of studies that have concluded that a human mind absorbs it's surroundings. If a parent allows their child to play a game continuously as a substitute for human interaction, they begin to absorb themselves into the game. This is in extreme cases, but the more violent the game, the shorter the time needed to absorb. This isn't speculation. This is science. A kid that is raised by video games is likely to do things that is inspired by video games.
The government can't tell a parent how to raise their kids, as long as the parent isn't harming the child. Raising your kids on GTA isn't illegal, but it is stupid. The government can, however, restrict the types of video games that kids get ahold of.
And you seem to be confused as to who is doing the killing. The deaths of the Iraqi civilians is tragic, but how dare you place the blame on the government. Hillary Clinton didn't blow herself up in the middle of a crowded plaza. George Bush didn't fire an AK-47 at a family walking down the street. Dennis Hastert didn't gun down a presidential candidate. These deaths fall on the shoulders of the insurgents, or the terrorists, or whoever DID kill these people. These people are motivated by hate, prejudice, greed, and religion. These are the same people that would organize attacks against Europe and the North America, simply because we don't share their religion or because we refuse to fund them.
And this is why the government isn't bringing the troops home. Bush isn't refusing because he's mean. He's refusing because if we leave Iraq, it goes straight to the way it was before. If you think it "wasn't all that bad," then perhaps you should check the news. If you think the government is influencing our media, then check foreign news reports. Iraqis are finally coming forward with stories of the terror Hussein put on them. If you happen to glance at these stories, or God forbid, actually look into them, you'll see stories of Hussein throwing suspected terrorists in prison with their families, torturing them for months, then executing them with meat grinders.
We need to be there. I don't agree with the fact that we got involved in Iraq in the first place, honestly, but we can't cut and run, as so many people seem to be in favor of doing. The Iraqi army isn't ready to keep order, nor is their government. We have a responsibility to these people. If we leave, thousands more will die.
GRColin
Rookie
Wow, just wow.
I never thought a discussion of video game violence would result in a defense of our military efforts in Iraq. That's simply amazing.
Joe's post had two simple points that you seem to have missed, Flak.
First, writing a review for a game is always an opinion. Hopefully an educated one, but an opinion nonetheless. Writing something like "this is a horror movie, so fans of horror movies will like it" does absolutely nothing. Of course horror movie fans will like a horror movie. The reader has been given absolutely no new information from statements like that in any review. Readers read reviews to get opinions, not cold hard facts. You can also like or dislike any reviewer. I personally have never listened to Ebert since he stated "Home Alone 3 is the best of the series. Thumbs up!" Yikes.
Second, violence is a part of society, with or without videogames. We are fighting a war right now using guns, not kittens. The rhetoric from many of our leaders is frighteningly violent whether you support their positions or not. However, according to their rants, video games are some sort of major cause of violence that need to be stopped.
The fact of the matter is that there are always crazy people in this world. Some crazy people or their apologists blame music for their actions (damn you 2 Live Crew), some blame movies, and a growing number are now blaming video games. However, up until this point, NOT ONE OF THOSE INDUSTRIES HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Let that sink in. All ratings in any other media is industry controlled and left to the consumer to decide what is right and wrong for their own family. As you said, Flak, you can't legislate how people raise their families. So, which side of this discussion are you actually on?
As duke's oft quoted article (at http://grbeta.bolt.com/static/index.php ... e=violence for the lazy) states "There is no epidemic of youth violence in America." Period. He quotes facts, not some vague reference to "studies" that have been done. In fact, I dare you to find a study that conclusively determines that playing violent video games leads to violent behaviour. You won't find them because those studies don't exist.
What you will find is numerous studies that state that the average human can distinguish reality from fantasy at about the age of 5, give or take a year. Obviously, I'm not stating that a 5 year old should play GTA, but a 5 year old does know that GTA is not real.
Personally, I've been playing video games since I was about 5 years old. I also work for a company that creates many top selling video games, some violent, most not. And yet, I'm a genuinely nice guy, albiet a bit of a smartass. According to your mythical studies, I should be completely desensitized to violence and ready to take a swing at anyone who looks at me cross eyed. That's bonkers.
The real causes of violence are fairly easy to spot. Poverty being one of the biggest and, alas, human nature being one too. Video games are just the next in another line of scapegoats.
- C!
PS. Why do I think this topic will be shut soon.
PPS. Took way to long to write this, gotta get back to work corrupting the youth of america.
I never thought a discussion of video game violence would result in a defense of our military efforts in Iraq. That's simply amazing.
Joe's post had two simple points that you seem to have missed, Flak.
First, writing a review for a game is always an opinion. Hopefully an educated one, but an opinion nonetheless. Writing something like "this is a horror movie, so fans of horror movies will like it" does absolutely nothing. Of course horror movie fans will like a horror movie. The reader has been given absolutely no new information from statements like that in any review. Readers read reviews to get opinions, not cold hard facts. You can also like or dislike any reviewer. I personally have never listened to Ebert since he stated "Home Alone 3 is the best of the series. Thumbs up!" Yikes.
Second, violence is a part of society, with or without videogames. We are fighting a war right now using guns, not kittens. The rhetoric from many of our leaders is frighteningly violent whether you support their positions or not. However, according to their rants, video games are some sort of major cause of violence that need to be stopped.
The fact of the matter is that there are always crazy people in this world. Some crazy people or their apologists blame music for their actions (damn you 2 Live Crew), some blame movies, and a growing number are now blaming video games. However, up until this point, NOT ONE OF THOSE INDUSTRIES HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Let that sink in. All ratings in any other media is industry controlled and left to the consumer to decide what is right and wrong for their own family. As you said, Flak, you can't legislate how people raise their families. So, which side of this discussion are you actually on?
As duke's oft quoted article (at http://grbeta.bolt.com/static/index.php ... e=violence for the lazy) states "There is no epidemic of youth violence in America." Period. He quotes facts, not some vague reference to "studies" that have been done. In fact, I dare you to find a study that conclusively determines that playing violent video games leads to violent behaviour. You won't find them because those studies don't exist.
What you will find is numerous studies that state that the average human can distinguish reality from fantasy at about the age of 5, give or take a year. Obviously, I'm not stating that a 5 year old should play GTA, but a 5 year old does know that GTA is not real.
Personally, I've been playing video games since I was about 5 years old. I also work for a company that creates many top selling video games, some violent, most not. And yet, I'm a genuinely nice guy, albiet a bit of a smartass. According to your mythical studies, I should be completely desensitized to violence and ready to take a swing at anyone who looks at me cross eyed. That's bonkers.
The real causes of violence are fairly easy to spot. Poverty being one of the biggest and, alas, human nature being one too. Video games are just the next in another line of scapegoats.
- C!
PS. Why do I think this topic will be shut soon.
PPS. Took way to long to write this, gotta get back to work corrupting the youth of america.
White_Rabbit
Rookie
Sorry for the sidetrack here but...If I have an epileptic seizure from Grey's "lol" am I in the right to sue?
FlakPanzer
Rookie
You're right about violence to an extent. Actually, violence is a part of nature. There isn't a single species on the face of the Earth that wouldn't defend itself, or fight another creature. There are some that scarcely fight, but consider the term "self-defense mechanism." Sloths live high in trees for a reason, and it isn't so they can get a tan.
I agree with you to a degree about Clinton's rants. She isn't right, nor is Jack Thompson. Jack Thompson is an absolute douchebag. Video games are not a major cause of violence in any sense of the word. And I didn't directly say that, but if anyone thought I implied that, then I apologize. But she isn't completely wrong. The human brain, as I said before, absorbs information at a rapid rate until it becomes 17 years of age. If a child is raised on GTA, that child will absorb the information. Some parents out there don't seem to care about that, and for those select few, laws need to be put in place to deter them from doing something that stupid. Now, this doesn't mean a child raised on GTA will be a serial killer. But you can't tell me you've never seen a kid curse because he heard it on TV. It's the same basic principle, on a far more dramatic level. You don't need to think GTA is real in order to re-enact things you've seen on TV. Hell, when I was in 2nd grade, there was a fight in the schoolyard that resulted from letting the kids watch a claymation movie about antibodies killing viruses. Until I was 5 years old, I thought every human being could be shot twice before they died.
I'm now 17, and I've never had to fight before in my life. I am in no way a violent person. In fact, quite the opposite. I've been playing video games since I was 4. But the point is, "monkey see, monkey do." A normal person would most likely never kill someone because of a game, but the odds of someone who has a pre-existing mental illness getting ahold of GTA and thinking he can kill as many cops as he wants aren't that far off. In fact, most of the time, all they need is a gun put in their hand.
I'm on the side of the government as far as the law goes. The fact of the matter is, and the tobacco industry is living proof, money is always going to be more important than safety. Any developer would be more than happy to see their games unrestricted to get in the hands of a much broader audience, meaning a far greater profit. You can't expect anything less. The difference between this and the other media blamed for violence (music, movies, etc.) is that no other form of media has had this kind of interaction. You play as the hero, the baseball star, the pilot, the soldier, or the murderer. Music and movies can't offer that.
Violence does desensitize people to violence. The military uses video games for a reason. It doesn't make you volatile, and you should learn the difference. Desensitizing someone to violence means you're a more efficient killer. You'll be less hesitant should you be killing someone. This can be in self-defense, of course, which makes it a benefit. Violence, as we've said, is a way of life. If someone tried to kill me right now, I wouldn't be half as slow to act as someone who doesn't play video games. Does this mean I can put a bullet in someone's head without remorse? No. But it means I can defend myself more efficiently.
And about the graph the government released. We are the least violent generation in history. But that doesn't mean there isn't violence, so graphs don't mean anything. If we just settle for what we have now, then we've failed as human beings. There are no studies that declare that playing violent video games makes someone violent. I never said there were. Studies do, however, show that the human mind absorbs information until it turns 17 years of age. You have that nifty little M17+ rating at the bottom of your video game boxes as proof, if you need it. Your mind always learns, but this is the point when it stops adapting. If it adapts to excessive gaming, it can only be assumed that it will learn from games. And with the wrong person, and the wrong game, you have a potentially dangerous person.
Money will always be the source of all violence. If money were eliminated, so would war and violence. Haven't you ever wondered why we have more than one nation? A single global nation would have achieved colonies on Mars by now, with all the scientists and workers working together. The only reason we haven't yet unified the world is mostly money. Money, and a profound hatred for one another. I'm sure the KKK would go nuts if they realized white politicians were on the same level as the African nations.
I agree with you to a degree about Clinton's rants. She isn't right, nor is Jack Thompson. Jack Thompson is an absolute douchebag. Video games are not a major cause of violence in any sense of the word. And I didn't directly say that, but if anyone thought I implied that, then I apologize. But she isn't completely wrong. The human brain, as I said before, absorbs information at a rapid rate until it becomes 17 years of age. If a child is raised on GTA, that child will absorb the information. Some parents out there don't seem to care about that, and for those select few, laws need to be put in place to deter them from doing something that stupid. Now, this doesn't mean a child raised on GTA will be a serial killer. But you can't tell me you've never seen a kid curse because he heard it on TV. It's the same basic principle, on a far more dramatic level. You don't need to think GTA is real in order to re-enact things you've seen on TV. Hell, when I was in 2nd grade, there was a fight in the schoolyard that resulted from letting the kids watch a claymation movie about antibodies killing viruses. Until I was 5 years old, I thought every human being could be shot twice before they died.
I'm now 17, and I've never had to fight before in my life. I am in no way a violent person. In fact, quite the opposite. I've been playing video games since I was 4. But the point is, "monkey see, monkey do." A normal person would most likely never kill someone because of a game, but the odds of someone who has a pre-existing mental illness getting ahold of GTA and thinking he can kill as many cops as he wants aren't that far off. In fact, most of the time, all they need is a gun put in their hand.
I'm on the side of the government as far as the law goes. The fact of the matter is, and the tobacco industry is living proof, money is always going to be more important than safety. Any developer would be more than happy to see their games unrestricted to get in the hands of a much broader audience, meaning a far greater profit. You can't expect anything less. The difference between this and the other media blamed for violence (music, movies, etc.) is that no other form of media has had this kind of interaction. You play as the hero, the baseball star, the pilot, the soldier, or the murderer. Music and movies can't offer that.
Violence does desensitize people to violence. The military uses video games for a reason. It doesn't make you volatile, and you should learn the difference. Desensitizing someone to violence means you're a more efficient killer. You'll be less hesitant should you be killing someone. This can be in self-defense, of course, which makes it a benefit. Violence, as we've said, is a way of life. If someone tried to kill me right now, I wouldn't be half as slow to act as someone who doesn't play video games. Does this mean I can put a bullet in someone's head without remorse? No. But it means I can defend myself more efficiently.
And about the graph the government released. We are the least violent generation in history. But that doesn't mean there isn't violence, so graphs don't mean anything. If we just settle for what we have now, then we've failed as human beings. There are no studies that declare that playing violent video games makes someone violent. I never said there were. Studies do, however, show that the human mind absorbs information until it turns 17 years of age. You have that nifty little M17+ rating at the bottom of your video game boxes as proof, if you need it. Your mind always learns, but this is the point when it stops adapting. If it adapts to excessive gaming, it can only be assumed that it will learn from games. And with the wrong person, and the wrong game, you have a potentially dangerous person.
Money will always be the source of all violence. If money were eliminated, so would war and violence. Haven't you ever wondered why we have more than one nation? A single global nation would have achieved colonies on Mars by now, with all the scientists and workers working together. The only reason we haven't yet unified the world is mostly money. Money, and a profound hatred for one another. I'm sure the KKK would go nuts if they realized white politicians were on the same level as the African nations.
Frozen
Rookie
Well, posts like this are just a sign that GR is getting popular. GR is way under the ranting nerd quota on these messageboards (we already have plenty of nerds, just not enough of anti-GR ranting ones). A little while back it was from some RYL players and now we get this. So what will be the next type of GR Sucks rant we will see on these forums? Bets, anyone?
