Posted on December 16, 2011 - 12:30am by moviebob
What does the Red Cross have against war games? The Game OverThinker dives right into controversy this episode.
» Show: The Game OverThinker » Comments: 120
Please login or register to post comments
I think the Red Cross has a slight point in how things are potrayed, that being said I don't Think that changing games is a good idea if you want to have soem kind of impact on the society. Just as the OverThinker stated, movies and TV had to grow up because people realized that the original statement of war was not all black and white, good and bad, heroes and villains as it had been shown. I don't think you can change gaming or the people who buy games by forcing them to change thier content. Instead look to the society to see why people don;t seem to care that they just tortured a guy or were holed up in a church and focus on why they don't care. (politics, media, mindset, etc.) entertainment gives people what they want, so don't try to change the entertainment, but see if you can't change how people see war and what they want from a war experiance, and the industry will change on it's own.
What I take from Bob's message is that there needs to be a game critical of real world issues. We cant have just one type of game out there or just one message. We can have our Modern Warfare, and we should, yet at the same time... How about games that also show the other side of war?
Bob I think you have gone on a negative rant a bit much though, show us the positive side!
Wow, really ironic how a guy that spends 90% of the time bitching in his videos, complains about the bitchiness of gaming community. As Ruben said, I too grew up in the height of retro gaming, and is true, at least 90% of the games back then were ass. I consider myself a retro gaming enthusiast, but this biased nostalgic bashing of modern gaming is getting really ridiculous, hope you eventually realize that one way or the other video games are just as good as ever, even better, we get so many good games now a days that is hard to keep up, without even counting the FPS (which are not really bad). At the end of the day you're coming off as a guy who's angry and repressed because Nintendo games are not the mainstream titles anymore, giving us: Nintendo and retro fans that nostalgic bitchy reputation, ponder on that...
Fallacy of equivocation...
I know perfectly well what censorship is, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities of others, without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors."
The Excerpt above is what Bob wants the "gaming community" to do since there is no danger of censorship anymore we should think about how appropriate our content is ourselves. Kinda defeats the point of fighting government censorship if you think about it.
Can you define "censorship"? It seems to me you think it is something it is not.
Still sounds like censorship, doesn't matter if you call it "discussion" or "censorship" I'm pretty sure it's nobody's business what I play and when I play it.
You don't seem to understand the man's mission or message do ya'..? Let me break it down for you, while there was a legit threat out there looming in the dark "we" (rational, older, i.e. paved the way supported the industry so it was here for ya'll) didn't mind "your" (typical gamer, especially the younger generation in the community) lack of critical thought in defense for the very life of the art. Now however we simply asks people apply a little rational thought, that is, logic. It isn't that he wants us to "censor ourselves" per se, but that he'd like us all to have the rational, adult dissuasion that ought to come along with the adult content we fought to protect...
Gotta love Bob's logic: Games fall now under the first amendment and cannot be censored by the government, therefore it's now OUR job to develop censorship rules for games to make sure we keep those who support censorship happy! ... Brilliant!
Not enough Fluttershy!
I like the idea. Someone should make a shooter that is based more around single player and have limited online multiplayer. After a certain amount of online play, have the player experience a trial against them to see how many war crimes they actually commit and have certain weapons and abilities taken from them for each individual war crime committed.
Hahaha.. That part when he steps on a copy Bomberman Act Zero is golden!! Great episode as always!
Maybe you haven't noticed, but gaming is now bigger than ever. People have different tasts Bob, yet you seem to poo all over people who don't like the same games as you do. I grew up in the height of retro gaming, and you know what. 99% of those games sucked. Their are better games now. Do you not realize that games like Mass Effect have already looked deep into the morality of war, and they even have parts where you have to answer for your actions. You get angry when people bitch about Nintendo innovation, yet you bitch and cry and don't recognize what the other companies are doing. Ps.......the main reason more people like MW over BF is the fact that MW has a fun single player. BF does not have one.
You are right about the Red Cross making a good point, and I would applaud game designers taking hte example set by Metal Gear and showing war off in a negative light. I love that about Metal Gear. It knows war is a deep and complex issue, and it treats it like that
Ok Although I agreed with this episode just one thing:STOP COMPARING GAMERS OF THE INTERNET,because 95%Are douches
But if you look,at Gamers associations,you know that they know how to handle those kinds of situations
I think I know how: in multiplayer shooters you often have to earn points to promote (aka level up) in order to get the best weapons and skills through your playign skills; how about putting civilians in the mutliplayer mode as NPCs and in addition to succesful playign giving point, killing civilians, whether deliberate or accidental, or even destroying civilian structures and gas supplies ect. will actually lower your score, even demoting you if you do it too much. this will either encoruage peopel to think more about how they play or it will piss people off and turn the dominance away from multiplayer shooters, at least if every shooter does this it will and we prevent one developer from stipping out that to undersell everyone.
Okay of all the silly storylines you have come up with. This, this I can get into
Yeah, the whole "Retrothinker" thing is kind of lame, games were fun back then, but I don't think we needed a character to show how much "better" gaming was back in the day.
This show should change its name to "the nostalgia gamer show", I'm tired of Bob living in the past and talking about how awesome it was, it wasn't that great Bob there's more good games released now than it was back then specially on the NES era when there were a lot of terrible games.
And why do you talk like you are the leader of all gamers "we talk about this already guys but you did it again bla, bla, bla" besides YOU DON'T EVEN TAKE YOUR OWN ADVISE remember "Building a better gamer" well you don't seem to have lost a pound since then.
you know his thinking? no one but himself knows. and a diagnosis of 'liberal'? dear god no, i just wanna watch videos, mister! several paragraphs?...there are better uses of your time.
you're a bit of all right, sir! if only there was a friend request thing on this website.
No comments found