EA Chief: Game Violence Worries Are a "Perception Problem"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Actually, when you have that much research showing no connection between the violence and violent media, you have substantial evidence that video games don't cause violence.AT God said:
I can't believe that Riccitiello said something I completely agree with. These are crazy times.
Well, he also thinks Medal of Honor: Warfighter's critical reception was a perception problem. Nothing against his stance on violence, but he's not exactly the type that would willingly submit to the truth if it goes against the interest of his company.
Look at the Dead Space video above.
They are blaming entertainment because the real culprits got our representatives and media in their pocket. I am of course speaking of the legal prescription drugs and the mental health institution. You shouldn't be worried about taking guns away from people who want to protect themselves because criminals and those involved in mass shootings are usually mentally unbalanced and they don't have registered guns. They will get the guns illegally regardless of what rights you take away from people.Aikayai said:
Anywho I am starting to digress but I just wish people would educate themselves on the real problem and not just follow the line of bread crumbs that the media is trying to lead you towards so you can become a carrier pigeon of their propaganda.
Wait This is the SAME Riccitiello EA CEO that runs Electronic Arts in this Universe??
Am I daydreaming Or will there be >unforseen consequences<???
OMG! *max. confused*
Am I daydreaming Or will there be >unforseen consequences<???
OMG! *max. confused*
How would you amend it and why? And before you answer that question try your hand at this one: What is the purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?Aikayai said:
Do you happen to know the statistics for how many violent crimes involving guns are carried out with legally purchased and possessed firearms? How many use illegally obtained firearms? How about how many firearms laws there currently are and how well are they enforced?
The Second Amendment is no more the problem than TV, Movies, Video games or Music are. Take away the right to arm ourselves and you take away our ability to defend ourselves and our families.
And remember this one thing, "Any time someone says there ought to be a law, there most likely shouldn't be." Laws are powerful things and if they are written hastily and without consideration of unintended consequences we can find our freedoms slipping away.
Riticello is absolutely right here. The more gamers scream, whine, stomp on the floor and run to their bomb proof closets every time violence and videogames are mentioned in the same sentence, the worse things are going to become. We all know there is nothing more than coincidental linkage between violent games and acts of extreme violence. We all know what redeeming qualities games do have. We should be willing to stand up and trumpet those facts from the rooftops. If that means going to the table in government or the media, so be it. We don't have anything to hide.
This is my problem, he goes and makes statements as the ones shown in the article here that i completly agree with.Scorpid said:
But then i remember that EA shitty Marketing and PR are one of the main things that have fueled the 'Violent games' discussion for years.
It's Bizarro Riccitiello!
Now I'll just wait for him to announce a return to producing innovative single player games that focus on perfecting their genre. Go on my son!
Now I'll just wait for him to announce a return to producing innovative single player games that focus on perfecting their genre. Go on my son!
I'm sorry but I don't think you look at crime statistics outside the US. I live in the UK and have no problem "defending" my home, nor do we have over 8000 gun crimes reported every year. Even Russia has a better gun record...Ken Sapp said:
If I had my way, firearms would only be obtainable with a licence and armed forces training as a minimum requirement. The second amendment can be amended for the modern age, no matter what some 70 year old politician says. Remember the french during the first world war? They charged cavalry, men on horseback, into machine gun fire because their Generals were too attached to the old way of fighting. Modern military tactics were developed and rules of engagement changed. So why can't the second amendment?
Not owning a gun doesn't make you any less manly, or any less able to defend your homes from any invaders. Why is it unreasonable that the right to bear arms could be changed to war time only? Or that firearms over a certain caliber be outlawed? If you really need a gun that badly, why do you need an M16 over a 9mm? These things no one is willing to address, so nut cases are free to rampage when they please and destroy the livelihoods of the individual, people like you or me.
Until someone is brave enough to stand up to the gun cabinet in government, these problems are going to continue until one day a potential Einstein or Hubble is killed and America is the only loser when that happens.
Says the guy making Military Shooters left and right... Military Space 3, Military Effect 3, Militarystrike and Medal of Honor: Brown People Fighter.
So what about those of us who have issues with joining a military but just want to hunt? Do we have to go against our some of our beliefs and possibly kill people just to have the right to hunt animals on our own property?[quote/] The second amendment can be amended for the modern age, no matter what some 70 year old politician says. Remember the french during the first world war? They charged cavalry, men on horseback, into machine gun fire because their Generals were too attached to the old way of fighting. Modern military tactics were developed and rules of engagement changed. So why can't the second amendment?[/quote]You can't really compare the evolution of military tactics to gun control. Military tactics had to evolve to accommodate new technology like tanks, machine guns, and the like. However, guns haven't evolved; they are still point barrel pull trigger, the only differences between guns today as compared to a century ago is accuracy and how many bullets are shot. That said, gun control has never been perfect and I don't think it ever will be. ...I honestly don't have a good answer to this part.Aikayai said:
[quote/]Not owning a gun doesn't make you any less manly, or any less able to defend your homes from any invaders.[/quote] I don't know. My place has a lot of big rooms and the only weapons I have are a shotgun and a dulled katana. If I had to defend my home against an intruder with a gun I'd probably end up dead because gun-toting baddie+open area+you with katana=death.[quote/] Why is it unreasonable that the right to bear arms could be changed to war time only?[/quote]Because criminals who don't obey gun laws now won't obey them then, while law-abiding citizens will. Suddenly, all the criminals have guns and all the citizens who are their victims don't.[quote/] Or that firearms over a certain caliber be outlawed? If you really need a gun that badly, why do you need an M16 over a 9mm?[/quote]OK, that one is reasonable. I've never understood the need for the "big stuff" anyways.[quote/] These things no one is willing to address, so nut cases are free to rampage when they please and destroy the livelihoods of the individual, people like you or me. [/quote]Please, nut cases have been doing this for a long time before guns entered the picture.
Oh Christ, this thread has already devolved into a pro-gun/anti-gun argument. At least it's remaining relatviely civil, but it won't take long for it to go downhill. (Yay for optimism!)
Anyway, most here seem to be equally confused as to why it's coming from Riccitiello as opposed to, y'know, someone sane. In fact, my first, instinctual thought was that "Oh, he's trying to claw back some credibility and dignity." Hardly shocking, but I certainly agree with him. I did think that not participating in tests just makes us look like we have something to hide.
Anyway, most here seem to be equally confused as to why it's coming from Riccitiello as opposed to, y'know, someone sane. In fact, my first, instinctual thought was that "Oh, he's trying to claw back some credibility and dignity." Hardly shocking, but I certainly agree with him. I did think that not participating in tests just makes us look like we have something to hide.
o.0
he said something ... intelligent ... ? and i agree with it ...
i'm going to go take a shower now, i feel dirty
he said something ... intelligent ... ? and i agree with it ...
i'm going to go take a shower now, i feel dirty
Well actually pretty much all of the mass shootings in the US have been from legally registered guns.GAunderrated said:
Because criminals who don't obey gun laws now won't obey them then, while law-abiding citizens will. Suddenly, all the criminals have guns and all the citizens who are their victims don't.[/quote]kael013 said:
I really really dislike this argument. The difficulty for somebody to get a gun legally has a tremendous effect on the difficulty to get a gun illegally. It also effects the ability of officers to enforce regulations.
One other thing to note is that the lax gun control in the US actually effects a lot of other countries. Its far easier to get a gun in the US and smuggle it over a border then to get one in a neighboring country. So not only are the pathetic gun control laws in the US making it easier for criminals their to get guns but in other countries as well.