Censorship is almost always a bad idea because of the road it eventually leads to. I feel bad for you Australians...
Also, I wish I had an accent.
Also, I wish I had an accent.
Atkinson Says You Don't Need to Impale People
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
While Akinson's videogame censorship policy is overblown, there is some merit to his afterthought: "You don't need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people."
Simplified: "You don't NEED to see impalement, decapitation, and dismemberment."
The gore in the games that matter most to me (Final Fantasy VII, Bioshock, Dead Space, Fallout 3, Brutal Legend, Conker's Bad Fur Day, The Resident Evil Remake, and Silent Hill 2) are less important than the story elements, aesthetics, philosophies, and characters. HOWEVER, the gore present impresses upon me consequences and narrative weight just as gore imparts this in other entertainment.
On topic, I don't NEED to see an Alien's extra jaw pop through someone's head. 'Alien' and 'Aliens' were far more terrifying as left to the imagination. Further, the strength of the Alien's potency is its utter detachment from humanity -its incomprehensibility; the horror of what it is and does is best kept clandestine. Conversely, I DO need to see the Alien's birth cycle; the violence of that act alone imparts the quality of its character beautifully: "Do not trifle with this. You can't handle this." Really, that's all we need.
I think it IS character-relevant to see Predator grab a dude's head and rip it out, spinal cord and all; if the Predator is a master hunter that makes men and women know what it's like to be a buck in deer season, we need to go all the way and show the Predator's method. Flaying, impaling, gutting, and skull-cleaning included.
Let it be said that I'm not championing for censorship; the gore present in these games, however implausible, makes sense in context. Despite Michael Atkinson's misguided crusade, we must prevent ourselves from making the ad hominin fallacy in rebuttal, whether or not we understand him to be a blowhard. We must be better than he projects us to be.
Simplified: "You don't NEED to see impalement, decapitation, and dismemberment."
The gore in the games that matter most to me (Final Fantasy VII, Bioshock, Dead Space, Fallout 3, Brutal Legend, Conker's Bad Fur Day, The Resident Evil Remake, and Silent Hill 2) are less important than the story elements, aesthetics, philosophies, and characters. HOWEVER, the gore present impresses upon me consequences and narrative weight just as gore imparts this in other entertainment.
On topic, I don't NEED to see an Alien's extra jaw pop through someone's head. 'Alien' and 'Aliens' were far more terrifying as left to the imagination. Further, the strength of the Alien's potency is its utter detachment from humanity -its incomprehensibility; the horror of what it is and does is best kept clandestine. Conversely, I DO need to see the Alien's birth cycle; the violence of that act alone imparts the quality of its character beautifully: "Do not trifle with this. You can't handle this." Really, that's all we need.
I think it IS character-relevant to see Predator grab a dude's head and rip it out, spinal cord and all; if the Predator is a master hunter that makes men and women know what it's like to be a buck in deer season, we need to go all the way and show the Predator's method. Flaying, impaling, gutting, and skull-cleaning included.
Let it be said that I'm not championing for censorship; the gore present in these games, however implausible, makes sense in context. Despite Michael Atkinson's misguided crusade, we must prevent ourselves from making the ad hominin fallacy in rebuttal, whether or not we understand him to be a blowhard. We must be better than he projects us to be.
So, pretty much just like the "North Hollywood Shootout" in which 2 gunmen were inspired by a movie they once saw? And when a young woman killed an old man when she jumped off a 19 story building from what she learned in "The ultimate suicide guide"? Books and movies inspire violence too, Aktison.Greg Tito said:
You know what the best part is? I'm picturing him in an Australian Doom Fortress (made entirely out of Fosters cans. In the shape of a giant Fosters can.), laughing maniacally and explaining his plans to his legion of Death-Kangaroos while stroking his pet Koala;SilentHunter7 said:
"They said I was talking a load of crap, Skip! They said I was talking a load of crap! We'll show them just how much CRAP I CAN TALK!"
It's a lot funnier if you're imagining it in my godawful Australian accent.
Well MR Atkinson just come out and say what you truly feel, you people don't need to watch TV or go to the movies or listen to radio or that new fangled tiny silver record thing. Get out in the heat and go shopping! for anything but media!!! and booze.....we need to ban booze too!!!111
People who kill because of video games will kill because of anything, video games are just easier and more comfortable for morons to blame than religion, bad parenting, stressful working conditions, flawed education systems etc.
My thoughts exactly. The more violent you can be in a game, the more likely it is to keep you sane when you're angry.paragon1 said:
I find it odd that they blame video games for violence or corruption when the evidence is so overwhelming it is almost like they are flat earth proponents.
NO THE EARTH IS FLAT!
But...all the evidence says otherwise?
I DON'T CARE!
Kind of hard to go out and shoot someone when you are burned out from an hour long adrenaline rush.
I tend to liken it to the person who masturbates versus the person who doesn't. If both people have the same sex drive, the person who masturbates is going to be far less figgity around folks in public than the one that doesn't.
Because they have pent up hormones and emotions that aren't being met.
Simulating the act is a good way of aleviating the desire to actually act it out. Which is why all the conservatives against porn make me chuckle. Especially when they can't understand why people are banging
. If you'd stop telling them masturbation and porn was evil they just might use those as outs instead of having after school orgys.
But I'm digressing.
NO THE EARTH IS FLAT!
But...all the evidence says otherwise?
I DON'T CARE!
Teen violence has dropped every year since Video Games were introduced. As games become more violent teens on average become less violent. Not really rocket science to understand why either.Truly-A-Lie said:
Kind of hard to go out and shoot someone when you are burned out from an hour long adrenaline rush.
I tend to liken it to the person who masturbates versus the person who doesn't. If both people have the same sex drive, the person who masturbates is going to be far less figgity around folks in public than the one that doesn't.
Because they have pent up hormones and emotions that aren't being met.
Simulating the act is a good way of aleviating the desire to actually act it out. Which is why all the conservatives against porn make me chuckle. Especially when they can't understand why people are banging
. If you'd stop telling them masturbation and porn was evil they just might use those as outs instead of having after school orgys.But I'm digressing.
What I don't understand is how Atkinson is allowed to quote thin air and still have power. I'm yet to see him quote specific results from any specific studies into violent acts committed by Australians. If he can't push any evidence for credibility of his argument, his blocking power should be overruled by majority. Why is this not the case?
Guns are banned here, and the majority of us live in a suburban atmosphere, so you'd be hard pressed to find that in suburbs where people who would be most likely to play these R18+ games, the typical percentage of those who actually own a chainsaw or shovel (but probably a Frying Pan). I think I worded that badly, I basically mean most of us who would buy and play these R18+ games don't own anything as dangerous as a Gun or Chainsaw, or are Aliens with impaling spikes. What is the issue here?
I mean if he was TRULY worried that somehow our brains are only, and solely affected by the interactivity provided through games, he might have taken a more proactive approach. Rather than banning L4D2, he could have suggested tougher laws on say, the handling of chainsaws, requiring them to be secured away from children.
I would rather that these laws are passed, and have the games modified so that they will only play on a console that has had its Parental Controls activated (even if that means someone has actively said "allow everything").
For PC games a Credit Card purchase would probably suffice, I dunno. But I think forcing Parental Controls would be a better solution than "blanket ban". In saying that I don't disagree with one of the purposes of Atkinson's reasoning, games that are developed for adults, should be played by Adults only. But his methodology and handling of the matter is extremely poor. Any attempts for contact to address the matter seem to be ignored unless you're important or willing to pay him for an interview in which he controls the published result. He appears to be oblivious and its this side that seems just as concerning as the ban itself.
I think it highlights a much deeper problem with the Australian political system which needs to be resolved, soon. But that's another story altogether.
I have one last argument, if anyone is willing to perhaps illustrate the matter personally and publicly to Mr. Atkinson please feel free to do so. But as others have illustrated, there are other far more scientifically and statistically proven influential substances and devices out there which are readily available. Mr. Atkinson's argument subsides around the fact that allowing these unrated games into Australian homes would eventually result in the fact that a child will ultimately play an unrated game. This is an unwarranted action and may quite possibly result in that child and/or person playing out "fantasies" in real life and causing harm to people.
So, as an analogy, lets look at a different regulated influence that subsides in most Australian homes, Drinks. We have age appropriate drinks (water, cordial, milk), drinks that are (mostly) for teenagers and above like Soft Drinks and Ginger Beer, Then we have our 18+ Alcohol drinks. Most families would keep alcohol in a common cupboard in the home, where if a child really wanted to, could grab a bottle and take a sip, maybe "borrow" a carton for the some party. Alcohol is known to cause accidents which cause permanent harm. It can lower people's inhibitions and consequently is known to make people become more violent under influence, and in various cases, end up with people killing people. Despite this being far more common than Atkinson's supposed statistics on gamers would provide, I fail to see Atkinson acting in any way towards better laws for the management and handling of alcohol, particularly in the home. Maybe introduce a law to require them to be stored in a locked cupboard?
Something to think about anyway.
Guns are banned here, and the majority of us live in a suburban atmosphere, so you'd be hard pressed to find that in suburbs where people who would be most likely to play these R18+ games, the typical percentage of those who actually own a chainsaw or shovel (but probably a Frying Pan). I think I worded that badly, I basically mean most of us who would buy and play these R18+ games don't own anything as dangerous as a Gun or Chainsaw, or are Aliens with impaling spikes. What is the issue here?
I mean if he was TRULY worried that somehow our brains are only, and solely affected by the interactivity provided through games, he might have taken a more proactive approach. Rather than banning L4D2, he could have suggested tougher laws on say, the handling of chainsaws, requiring them to be secured away from children.
I would rather that these laws are passed, and have the games modified so that they will only play on a console that has had its Parental Controls activated (even if that means someone has actively said "allow everything").
For PC games a Credit Card purchase would probably suffice, I dunno. But I think forcing Parental Controls would be a better solution than "blanket ban". In saying that I don't disagree with one of the purposes of Atkinson's reasoning, games that are developed for adults, should be played by Adults only. But his methodology and handling of the matter is extremely poor. Any attempts for contact to address the matter seem to be ignored unless you're important or willing to pay him for an interview in which he controls the published result. He appears to be oblivious and its this side that seems just as concerning as the ban itself.
I think it highlights a much deeper problem with the Australian political system which needs to be resolved, soon. But that's another story altogether.
I have one last argument, if anyone is willing to perhaps illustrate the matter personally and publicly to Mr. Atkinson please feel free to do so. But as others have illustrated, there are other far more scientifically and statistically proven influential substances and devices out there which are readily available. Mr. Atkinson's argument subsides around the fact that allowing these unrated games into Australian homes would eventually result in the fact that a child will ultimately play an unrated game. This is an unwarranted action and may quite possibly result in that child and/or person playing out "fantasies" in real life and causing harm to people.
So, as an analogy, lets look at a different regulated influence that subsides in most Australian homes, Drinks. We have age appropriate drinks (water, cordial, milk), drinks that are (mostly) for teenagers and above like Soft Drinks and Ginger Beer, Then we have our 18+ Alcohol drinks. Most families would keep alcohol in a common cupboard in the home, where if a child really wanted to, could grab a bottle and take a sip, maybe "borrow" a carton for the some party. Alcohol is known to cause accidents which cause permanent harm. It can lower people's inhibitions and consequently is known to make people become more violent under influence, and in various cases, end up with people killing people. Despite this being far more common than Atkinson's supposed statistics on gamers would provide, I fail to see Atkinson acting in any way towards better laws for the management and handling of alcohol, particularly in the home. Maybe introduce a law to require them to be stored in a locked cupboard?
Something to think about anyway.
Let's see, 3 million Australians.
1.5 million that would go out and buy this game, should it have been released her.
Averaging $90-$110 from most video game retailers.
$157.5 million dollars not being spent due to a banned game, which is money not put into the hands of retailers, which is taxed to the government, who spend it on Austrlian infrastructure.
And that's per every game banned by Attykins.
Or a load of bullcrap, my grasp on economics is laughably small.
1.5 million that would go out and buy this game, should it have been released her.
Averaging $90-$110 from most video game retailers.
$157.5 million dollars not being spent due to a banned game, which is money not put into the hands of retailers, which is taxed to the government, who spend it on Austrlian infrastructure.
And that's per every game banned by Attykins.
Or a load of bullcrap, my grasp on economics is laughably small.
Shaun says we don't need a South Australian attorney general who is living in the past about 50 years behind the times, who is unable to make one intelligently informed decision about the Rating's classifications in Australia.