[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by edlglide

Of course -- but it came out on PC much later...........in the GTA 3/Vice City combo pack, if I'm not mistaken.

Much later, yes, but you are mistaken about the combo pack. That was for the X-Box. I haven't seen any combo packs out for the PC, but I see copies of Vice City all over the place. They're usually under 30 dollars at this point. I saw a copy of VC for only 20 at a Wal-mart the other day.

[edlglide]

You're exactly right. The combo pack WAS for Xbox........they came out much later for it as well, so I got them confused momentarily.

And if I'm not mistaken, the PC Vice City is more or less a direct port from the PS2, yes? That would make it a less than stellar game for the PC, and would undoubtedly be the reason for the low prices.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

I wouldn't vote. Even though this election is the first that I can legally vote in, I wouldn't vote.

And SoccerDude, .

That was a warning. Next time I hear you or anyone else tell someone to blame South Park, (or movies for that matter,) I will give you or the offending party such a panning you will have to unbutton your shirt in order to see.

What I meant was, why do people always blame a video game? Video games are now means of entertainment and not only limited to the teen generation. Just like southpark is a cartoon but is not meant to be watched by 10 year olds. I love Southpark and I would never wanna see it gone just like I love violent video games. But I find it hypocritical that people blame video games for all teen related acts of violence when there is other media offering the same kind of violence.

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

Now, if you kill the bad guys, then it won't have much influence on you, but if you kill innocent people in the most shocking ways possible for the pleasure of killing, like in Manhunt, you are bound to. You get to choose your weapon, and you also get to perform the cold-blooded criminal act.

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

Teens can't assimilate the true values of society, therefore the "I don't know what's wrong about it" line.

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

Rockstar did do one good game though, Max Payne (Remedy developed it, I think Rockstar just financed it).

Oh! Ok. So the teens are unable to 'assimilate the true values of society'.

What are these true values of society? Are they a standardised set of unspoken rules everyone who counts automatically learns at a certain age?

I don't know what set of 'values of society' you assimilated or from where, but Its a little ridiculous to laud Max Payne as a good game where its ok to commit mass murder and acts of criminal violence (Yes, that's what it is). That the 'target's of your homicidal binge are guilty of virtual crime in Max Payne does not in any way justify his actions or behaviour which is every bit as murderous and criminal as those you're asked to perform in Manhunt.

I feel a lot more comfortable with 'MTV generation' kids telling me they accept computer game violence as a cathartic release and differentiate it from real world violence just fine. Far more comfortable than someone telling me that video games like Max Payne are great at forming the 'true values of society'.

[edlglide]

Teens are certainly able to assimilate the values of society just as well as someone in their 20s or 30s. Someone who commits a murder as a teen is going to be able to commit that murder later on in life, and I don't think video games really have any effect on that whatsoever.

Also, as far as Rockstar goes -- they made a western game called Red Dead Revolver in the last year or so that is supposed to be pretty good, similar to old western movies. I've never played it though.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by edlglide

You're exactly right. The combo pack WAS for Xbox........they came out much later for it as well, so I got them confused momentarily.

And if I'm not mistaken, the PC Vice City is more or less a direct port from the PS2, yes? That would make it a less than stellar game for the PC, and would undoubtedly be the reason for the low prices.

Nope. The reason it came out for PC so much later is that Rockstar really put a LOT of time and energy into making it a stellar game for the PC, and not just a basic port, the same as they did with GTA3. F'rinstance: better resolution and graphics, no "invisible walls," better controls plus a crosshair for easier aiming, customization, (such as the ability to change Tommy Vercetti's appearance,) etc. The game was nominated for quite a few PC Game of the Year awards, just like its predecessor, but I don't know how many it actually won. The reason for the low prices is that the game has just been out on PC for a couple years now.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

What I meant was, why do people always blame a video game? Video games are now means of entertainment and not only limited to the teen generation. Just like southpark is a cartoon but is not meant to be watched by 10 year olds. I love Southpark and I would never wanna see it gone just like I love violent video games. But I find it hypocritical that people blame video games for all teen related acts of violence when there is other media offering the same kind of violence.

Ah. I understand. It should be noted that some of the "other media" offering this violence is the news itself. I find it most hypocritical of all that someone like Bill O'Reilly is so against video games as being violent, yet he's on the same network that produces "COPS."

[Sly Boots]

Ok, first of all, I'm going to apologise. I read a review of Manhunt and saw some pictures that made me believe that you kill innocent people. Guess I was wrong.
Now, from what I've read, in Manhunt you are some sort of a nutball escaped from the mental institute and you are hired by a snuff movie producer to KILL people so he can film them. You stalk your victims and then you commit the atrocious act. Your weapons include a plastic bag and a piece of broken glass that you can use to take out the victims' eyes.
In Max Payne you're a cop whose wife was killed, so he goes undercover to uncover a huge conspiracy . In the way you kill gangsters and crime bosses that shoot at the sight of you so it's either them or you.
In Max Payne the violence is motivated. You are a COP. You don't have a choice, you have to shoot your way through. In Manhunt you are basically a serial killer (the game practically gave birth to a new genre - SCS = Serial Killer Simulator).
I think it all comes down to ethics. Max Payne is ethical, while Manhunt is obviously unethical.
You like movies. Max Payne is like watching Mad Max, Manhunt is like watching Natural Born Killers.
As I said I like violent games, but only where the violence is motivated by the game's story. As somebody else on this forum said, I also think that with Manhunt they've gone too far and that this scandal could harm a lot of good games. I think nobody would mind if this game was never made.

I am a teen, I'm 18, and like most teens, I get carried away sometimes, even in some of my posts. I have been studying psychology (true, highschool level, but I read all the books) and, yes, there are true values and the way they are assimilated makes one's character. The ten commandments are a good example of vaues. The study of ethics, a more polished view of what's right and wrong.

For Crunchy in milk:
I see you doug up one of my quotes from another post, you must really like me, huh? I see that we don't agree on anything. I'd say we're identical but on different sides of the rope (Unbreakable) but that would be a cliche. But it's never a cliche when it's happening to you (Max Payne).

I'll let you do the ironing.

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by Sly Boots

I see you doug up one of my quotes from another post, you must really like me, huh? I see that we don't agree on anything.

They're all from the one post I just cut out some of the chaff.

I dislike all of Rockstar's games, not just Manhunt. Your comparison to movies is dead on, Max Payne is equally a vacuous excuse to kill as any of Rockstar's games. You can argue paper thin plot points till the cows come home. Regardless of how you go about the mass slaughter, or the fictional motivation for it at the end of the day in the real world you picked up that product and decided to play it... your wife wasn't murdered, there isn't some amazingly stupid drug turning people to murderous savages (other than particular rockstar games?) you weren't framed for your boss's murder... you picked up a game about gunning people down and thought... yeah, I'll be in that.

Differentiating between 'good' and 'bad' games that involve high levels of criminal violence is laughable, especially if you're going to introduce the 10 commandments as reference material.

Oh and in Manhunt, the character has to kill or be killed (by the director) too...

You'll have to work a bit harder to make me your bitch, do your own ironing.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

Regardless of how you go about the mass slaughter, or the fictional motivation for it at the end of the day in the real world you picked up that product and decided to play it... your wife wasn't murdered, there isn't some amazingly stupid drug turning people to murderous savages (other than particular rockstar games?) you weren't framed for your boss's murder... you picked up a game about gunning people down and thought... yeah, I'll be in that.

So you're basically saying that playing a violent game is the sign of a violent mind unless you've actually gone through what the character has? That's just poor. "Fictional motivation" is perfectly fine when the "mass slaughter" you're performing is FICTIONAL ITSELF. One of the biggest reasons for playing a game (or watching a movie or reading a book for that matter) is to experience something that you probably will never experience in real life, whether that's bad or good. You're saying that no one ever buys a game for the story? Well, what about the cinematic quality of the game? What about someone who wants to play a game that will get their heart pumping? I could give you a huge list of games that I have completed where the story has been a major reason for my finishing the game. The Max Payne games are two of them. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City are two others. With all of these games, there have been other factors, of course, like the brilliant gameplay. But not once did I ever think a) "I'm playing this game for the violence." or b) "I want to be these characters."

And sure, you can get the Ten Commandments into this, but somehow I doubt God was referring to video games when he said that thou shalt not kill. That's just ridiculous.

Besides, God plays games too. I've heard he's a skee-ball fanatic.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

So you're basically saying that playing a violent game is the sign of a violent mind unless you've actually gone through what the character has? That's just poor. "Fictional motivation" is perfectly fine when the "mass slaughter" you're performing is FICTIONAL ITSELF. One of the biggest reasons for playing a game (or watching a movie or reading a book for that matter) is to experience something that you probably will never experience in real life, whether that's bad or good. You're saying that no one ever buys a game for the story? Well, what about the cinematic quality of the game? What about someone who wants to play a game that will get their heart pumping? I could give you a huge list of games that I have completed where the story has been a major reason for my finishing the game. The Max Payne games are two of them. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City are two others. With all of these games, there have been other factors, of course, like the brilliant gameplay. But not once did I ever think a) "I'm playing this game for the violence." or b) "I want to be these characters."

And sure, you can get the Ten Commandments into this, but somehow I doubt God was referring to video games when he said that thou shalt not kill. That's just ridiculous.

Besides, God plays games too. I've heard he's a skee-ball fanatic.

GTA VC Kinda made me wanna run people over for a while but then I got over it... But no seriously I totally agree I think including the 10 commandments to ban a video game is funny... What if I am an atheist?

[Fop]

BTW, I don't know if this has been mentioned in the thread, but turns out the supposed Manhunt killer didn't own the game - the victim did. Sorry, I don't have a link.

[WontonGoodsoup]

people who let video games dictate what they do are just very weak people with low self esteem. they are the kind of people that would be influenced by other media as well...movies, music...etc.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by Fop

BTW, I don't know if this has been mentioned in the thread, but turns out the supposed Manhunt killer didn't own the game - the victim did. Sorry, I don't have a link.

But you know that people are still going to dwell on it. Kind of like the murders in Florida. A guy and some of his cohorts killed six people because they stole some clothing and an X-Box from him. Disregarding the fact that the guy had just gotten out of jail after he'd already violated his parole, the CNN headline reads: "Six Killed in Fight over X-Box."

Disgusting. And I'm talking about the media here. Every time there's a murder, I wait for the inevitable video-game tie-in. And every time, there it is, no matter how tenuous. Sometimes I think the newscasters have no more ethics than the murderers.

[WontonGoodsoup]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

Every time there's a murder, I wait for the inevitable video-game tie-in.

People now adays always have to blame something else for thier bad behavior. These morons need to wake up and take responsibility for thier actions. It is the same mentality of the goof-buckets that sued mcdonald's because they're fat.

[edlglide]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

Nope. The reason it came out for PC so much later is that Rockstar really put a LOT of time and energy into making it a stellar game for the PC, and not just a basic port, the same as they did with GTA3. F'rinstance: better resolution and graphics, no "invisible walls," better controls plus a crosshair for easier aiming, customization, (such as the ability to change Tommy Vercetti's appearance,) etc. The game was nominated for quite a few PC Game of the Year awards, just like its predecessor, but I don't know how many it actually won. The reason for the low prices is that the game has just been out on PC for a couple years now.

Hmm.........I didn't realize that. Don't remember seeing it nominated for any PC game of the year awards either. Guess I somehow missed that completely because I'd already played it for PS2 and thus saw no reason to pay attention to the PC version.

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

So you're basically saying that playing a violent game is the sign of a violent mind unless you've actually gone through what the character has?

No, that would be you putting words in my mouth. I was replying to Sly Boots, who suggested that fictional motivation (story) differences between one violent game and another determine if the violence in a game is "acceptable".

I do not make the distinction between one fictional motivation or another.

"He's a Cop on the run" vs "He's a serial killer"

Both are fiction and equally pander to people who want to play at killing. How -and where- do you draw the 'line' at what type of story is acceptable so you can get to the killing?

I have never stated that people who want to play violent games are violent in the real world, that is a totally separate discussion to my point. I have never suggested that you must experience in the real world the same motivation as that in a video game in order to play it without a guilty conscience. I merely tried to point out that the story of Max Payne is fictional, and pointing to it as validation for a game about killing is as stupid as pointing to the stories in other games (ie: manhunt) that might disagree with your sensibilities, as reason to ban them.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

"Fictional motivation" is perfectly fine when the "mass slaughter" you're performing is FICTIONAL ITSELF. One of the biggest reasons for playing a game (or watching a movie or reading a book for that matter) is to experience something that you probably will never experience in real life, whether that's bad or good.

If the killing is fictional, why does the motivation (the story in which it occurs) matter so much? Level of enjoyment is not relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

You're saying that no one ever buys a game for the story?

No I didn't say that. I'm discussing the relevance of using a game's story to determine if the violence in it is 'ok' with society. This is entirely separate from whether or not a game has an engaging story that you enjoy.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

But not once did I ever think a) "I'm playing this game for the violence." or b) "I want to be these characters."

Again these are really beside the point I was discussing. To address them though, bullshit. If you didn't enjoy the violence or the characters to some degree, you wouldn't enjoy the 'gameplay' or 'stories'. Viscerally enjoying those elements is fine, its a game. I'm not saying (and never have) that you want to kill in the real world or even hit prostitutes with a baseball bat.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

And sure, you can get the Ten Commandments into this, but somehow I doubt God was referring to video games when he said that thou shalt not kill. That's just ridiculous.

You're talking to Sly Boots now? I did not bring up the 10 commandments initially, Sly boots was telling us about the proper development of values in society and was somehow trying to tie the commandments together with an explanation of why Max Payne is a more 'acceptable' game than Manhunt. I agree wholeheartedly that the commandments are irrelevant to the discussion.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

Both are fiction and equally pander to people who want to play at killing. How -and where- do you draw the 'line' at what type of story is acceptable so you can get to the killing?

I tend to have a guilty conscience in games. It's tough for me to go all-out dark side in a game like KOTOR because I genuinely feel bad killing those who I don't feel did anything to prompt the aggression.

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

I have never stated that people who want to play violent games are violent in the real world, that is a totally separate discussion to my point. I have never suggested that you must experience in the real world the same motivation as that in a video game in order to play it without a guilty conscience. I merely tried to point out that the story of Max Payne is fictional, and pointing to it as validation for a game about killing is as stupid as pointing to the stories in other games (ie: manhunt) that might disagree with your sensibilities, as reason to ban them.

I think I understand you now. Instead of you saying that Manhunt and Max Payne are horrible because of their violence, you're just saying that they're on an equal level, violence-wise, and should be treated the same? That I can understand, although the far more graphic nature of Manhunt brings a generally unwelcome element of cruelty and viciousness into the game that is absent from Max Payne. And that's the message that a lot of people who are otherwise fine playing Max Payne don't like seeing.

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

Again these are really beside the point I was discussing. To address them though, bullshit. If you didn't enjoy the violence or the characters to some degree, you wouldn't enjoy the 'gameplay' or 'stories'. Viscerally enjoying those elements is fine, its a game. I'm not saying (and never have) that you want to kill in the real world or even hit prostitutes with a baseball bat.

Sure, I'll have fun with video game violence, especially with newer games with great physics engines, but it's more a case of "not minding it," than actively enjoying it and seeking it out. What I mean is that the violence is not the reason that I play a game. I don't play Vice City or Max Payne because they're violent. It's not the main draw, which is why I've never played Soldier of Fortune and probably won't ever play Manhunt. It's not that I'm against the violence, it's just that the games don't interest me because the publishers feel the need to advertise the violence over all else. It's not immoral, it's just boring. You need something else there.

And I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be Max Payne. It's fun playing as him, sure, but not for a second would I want to be him. You want to have your wife and child murdered by drug addicts, and then be framed for the murder of your best friend? Don't think so. Not even when you throw Mona Sax into it.

[Tabbu]

One story I read was about school murders. Media acclaimed that that man "learned" to use weapons at games like "doom"(!). He was playing shooting games often and of course he went shooting his class mates and finally himself...


...oh dear can't you see how silly this is!!! Ok, police found that computer had some shooting games. What about the lying gun storage under his bed? Is that normal? Yeah, blame the doom! I've played it, but I don't own uzi collection. Maybe, just maybe his (mental) problems were somewhere deaper than in games.

DON'T BLAME GAME COMPANIES! WHEN BOX SAYS K-18 IT MEANS IT! Parents open your eyes for god sakes!

Sorry about shouting

Tapani

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

I think I understand you now. Instead of you saying that Manhunt and Max Payne are horrible because of their violence, you're just saying that they're on an equal level, violence-wise, and should be treated the same?

Yes, I consider them both games about violence. I personally dislike them both for their focus on violence, but at the same time I am happy for people to enjoy them if that's what they're in to. I hope people think about what they're really playing and look at violent games for what they are.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

although the far more graphic nature of Manhunt brings a generally unwelcome element of cruelty and viciousness into the game that is absent from Max Payne. And that's the message that a lot of people who are otherwise fine playing Max Payne don't like seeing.

What if they came up with a story as palatable as Max Payne to couch the violence in?