What is right? : V - Skyrim

» Fri May 13, 2011 2:59 pm

Oh goody, a thread about mature themes and in the first post it accuses the military of training the morals out of soldiers.

I think this one is gonna go downhill in a hurry.

Agree, I have friends in the military and FAMILY :swear:

» Fri May 13, 2011 6:46 pm

That article suggests something similar:

With that excerpt from the article I now understand why (some)children(and advlts) can become insult-spewing cretins when they are angry while playing a game.

» Fri May 13, 2011 12:54 pm

I believe the pope apologized for that barbaric act, and his apology was accepted, better late than never I guess

, and they did not massacre "Muslims" they massacred middle eastern people, most were just civilians, even the Christians/jews in Jerusalem got axed.

oh and ES is a game get over it

Just as a correction to history here... the Christian crusaders did not march off to massacre anyone, they went off to find the Holy Grail and claim Christian Holy sites - it just so happened that Muslims objected to having their Holy sites messed with and their tombs ransacked so they fought them and had a Holy war -
For more factual information and further illumination on this very important topic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

» Fri May 13, 2011 5:40 pm

If I understand you correctly then you do understand my point, if you also add that I think blowing someone's brains out and seeing brain matter fly, is just something that is very unnecessary in gaming aside from it being unhealthy. Really, deep cuts, splirts of blood is fine with me. Some people stated that fallout violence is just not right for TES and I completely agree, it was ok for fallout (which I loved though couldn't stand because of all the gore). I hear people screaming for that same kind of gore and even more, but I stand by the people who say it's not right for TES. That, overall, is actually my main point. I won't fight it in Fallout, and you can call me a hypocrite for it, but for TESV I will fight it, because it's just not right for it.

I agree that Fallout style gore would not be appropriate for Skyrim, but not on the basis that the gore is detrimental to the players via desensitization. This is what I posted in the Gore topic that is floating around the front page.

Gore on the other hand should play a more prominent role in the game I believe. Not beyond the point of believability however. I wouldn't want it to break my sense of immersion for the added cool effect. People exploding Fallout style with arrow shots and stuff would just be annoying. However pools of blood beneath the dead and similar levels of gore I feel would add to the experience.

I think that gore that is appropriate to the gameplay is well within the acceptable level, and that is well within what I consider a moral position for Bethesda.

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:43 am

This thread is ridiculous. Although I think all the threads DEMANDING more gore and six are also as ridiculous... advlt themes do not make good games good games. Hoping for more gore for the sake of having more gore is just stupid. It adds nothing to the game except shock value. Now, if adding more gore actually winds up adding to the game, then by all means. But, again, having gore for the sake of gore is just stupid.

Agreed.
It's not a matter of "realism". People exploding like they do in Gears of War wouldn't fit into an Elder Scrolls game.
It would be immature to do that.

If the game is rated M without an epic amount of gore, don't just increase the gore factor because it won't change the rating at all.

If it fits into the game; then put it in. If it doesn't (which I think is more likely); don't.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1160839-mature-content/ No sense in having two for the same thing, although this is a different side of the coin.

» Fri May 13, 2011 3:23 pm

Actually I have to admit that the level of gore in Fallout was over the top for me, I did not particularly like the feel of digging my way through the butchery. I can handle blood and gore, but I don't find it appealing in the slightest. So while some of it is necessary for a dose of realism I don't like the "revealing in it" sense that Fallout had, and wouldn't want to see it in TES series - in Fallout gore was added for the sake of gore and nothing else, it was not scary, not realistic and not exciting for me, the only thought I had about it was "Yack!"

As for sixual themes - love between people is natural and beautiful and should not be considered anything else. six is a part of may important things in our lives, while I don't like it being used as a cheap thrill I so nothing wrong with it in Mass Effect for example - it was presented correctly and tastefully.

How did the saying went? Make love, not war!

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:17 am

This is really quite simple. It's called separating reality from games. Some people turn their brain off to have fun, while others who feel impacted negatively by their chosen media either need to stop playing or get help. Yeesh.

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:45 am

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi43.pdf

I started to check references so that I could give a good critique but then I woke up to the fact that this isn't my field and I'm not writing a research paper.

So, I'll just go with their conclusion about desensitization:

Research has shown that even relatively brief exposure to media violence can reduce physiological reactions to the sight of real-world violence....
However, it still has to be established whether or not such decreased arousal in response to violent scenes stimulates violent behavior, and it is therefore uncertain how big a role emotional desensitization plays in the long-term cumulative effects of media violence on the instigation of aggression. Unfortunately, there have been few attempts to date to test this hypothesis directly.

So, desensitization occurs with even brief exposures to any media violence but we don't have much evidence about the effect on real violence.

Since I'm assuming they know their field, I'll admit that desensitization occurs with violent games.

» Fri May 13, 2011 12:06 pm

What is love?

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:18 am

They said the same thing about TV and...?are the current generations more tolerant to violence or violent than the previous ones?...NO. And, as most of you probably know, this is not new.

Tolerance to violence has been with us since grum smashed his neighbour′s head for stealing a freaking pelt and all the cave neighbourhood stood there watching, its not like just now everyone sees another person getting beaten and they don′t do anything, or they see a butchered dead body and they just say "hey, nice haircut!".

This tolerance to violence happened long before we could see a bunch of polygons getting all dismembered, its just that now at least we can blame something else for our stupid behavior.

EDIT: And, jesus christ!!...are there really people who can′t differentiate between a videogame and reality. :shakehead:

» Fri May 13, 2011 5:20 am

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me

» Fri May 13, 2011 9:50 am

I agree that excessive gore/six is not necessary in Skyrim. Disagree with your reasoning. It is an M game, so I don't think anything has to be excluded because of morality.

It's just not TES IMO. six and gritty violence is part of the Fallout-verse. I love Fallout. But I don't see any reason for it coming into TES just because it can.

» Fri May 13, 2011 4:08 pm

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Edit: Took to long with the second part of this post and got ninja'd... Well played sir, well played.

*snip*

Doesn't matter how many times this answer comes up in this thread. Some people can't get this idea through their head.

I would like to add something. I'm a sociopath. I have absolutely no empathy for anything. I'm as desensitized as a human being can possible be. Why do I mention this? Simple, it doesn't effect my daily life. I don't mindless hurt people. Being human means so much more than having feelings. I understand life is precious, as any other human would, no video game can take that from me.

To the OP, I employe you try to have more faith in humanity and for you to readjust what you thing humanity really means. I assure you are civility doesn't come from our feelings for one another, it's much deeper.

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:12 am

Simulated violence does desensitize, and it is viral, but we're already all desensitized.
Skyrim's violence aren't be any more desensitizing then the most violent nexgen game out... what is it? that turd god of war 3 ?

Also, desensitizing advlts (17+) isn't a big deal. They know real world from fiction.

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:01 am

Simulated violence does desensitize, and it is viral, but we're already all desensitized.

Horror movies desensitized me long ago....

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:13 am

I started to check references so that I could give a good critique but then I woke up to the fact that this isn't my field and I'm not writing a research paper.

So, I'll just go with their conclusion about desensitization:

So, desensitization occurs with even brief exposures to any media violence but we don't have much evidence about the effect on real violence.

Since I'm assuming they know their field, I'll admit that desensitization occurs with violent games.

I can't reach that conclusion based on that, myself. I can accept it as evidence, but not as proof necessarily. We can just as easily cite professional opinions suggesting that while violent videogames may desensitize people to violence, a biological or psychological predisposition distinct from videogames makes it far more probable for violent behavior to emerge.

Individuals high in hostility are more likely to become aggressive when exposure to violent video games, whereas individuals low in hostility are less likely to become aggressive when exposed (Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). This may lend some insight into the differing theories on the causes of antisocial behavior. Individuals high in hostility have a biological predisposition toward antisocial behavior and, under given circumstances, will learn these behaviors.

Peer commentary from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/kooijmans.html

I think an important point people quick to blame videogames for societal problems (not saying that's what you're doing mind you; but there are people who do) may be missing, is that there are plenty of children who play violent videogames practically from birth on, who do not end up being violent, antisocial, or comfortable with violence. So if there is a correlation with videogames, they cannot be the sole causative factor. If they were, then on their own, with no other factors, they would be sufficient to provoke violence, antisocial behavior, and desensitization in anyone.

Like I told the OP, I've been playing videogames (not to mention seeing violent, gorey movies) since I was 7. Hard to say actually when real violence came into the picture in games. I guess when I was about 11 or 12. But I have played A LOT. I'll be 30 soon. I'm a pacifist because of the principles my parents instilled in me. So what is the difference between me and these other people who are supposedly being made violent by being desensitized through videogame violence? And if there is a difference, doesn't that imply by its very nature that videogames alone cannot be the sole or even primary causative factor?

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:08 am

It doesn't have to be violent at all to make one frustrated and aggressive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxmgr2fFAuI

A badly designed game leads to aggression by driving you absolutely insane. In fact I find challenging realistic games to be just as rewarding as real life completed tasks. It really depends on the game.

» Fri May 13, 2011 10:24 am

So if there is a correlation with videogames, they cannot be the sole causative factor. If they were, then on their own, with no other factors, they would be sufficient to provoke violence, antisocial behavior, and desensitization in anyone.

I'm assuming the paper was right about desensitization since I'm too lazy to check the sources any further.

But, even that paper gives good examples to confound the simplistic reading of the results:

a 15-year follow-up among Polish females who experienced the social upheavals of the end of Communism as teenagers, Huesmann and Moise-Titus (1999) reported that those girls who were more aggressive as children and watched more violence became less aggressive and more successful young advlts than the girls who had been less aggressive and watched less violence

The aggressive who watched more violence became less aggressive than the less aggressive who watched less violence?

Like I told the OP, I've been playing violent videogames (not to mention seeing violent, gorey movies) since I was 7. I'll be 30 soon. I'm a pacifist because of the principles my parents instilled in me. So what is the difference between me and these other people who are supposedly being made violent by being desensitized through videogame violence? And if there is a difference, doesn't that imply by its very nature that videogames alone cannot be the sole or even primary causative factor?

I'm very similar.

I'm a pacifist who grew up watching gory movies like Hellraiser. You would think that I would be desensitized to the sight of blood, but when I see real blood I get faint.

» Fri May 13, 2011 12:20 pm

The most important factor here is choice. I choose to play Fallout 3 and see all that gore. No one is forcing me to pay $60 to play a video game. I choose to go watch that horror movie. No one is forcing me to subject myself to that kind of graphic imagery. If I play Grand Theft Auto one day and decide "hey, I want to steal a car for real" That's my choice. I decided that. It's not anyone's fault by mine. I am responsible for my actions. Example: I watch a show on National Geographic, I see a bear. I decide I want to go see a bear in person. I go into the wilderness and find a bear. That bear kills me. Is National Geographic responsible for my death? No, I am. National Geographic showed me a bear. But *I* decided to go out into the wilderness by myself and look for a bear.

» Fri May 13, 2011 4:35 pm

My last comment on the issue, because as I stated before this thread was meant to get people thinking, that was the best example I could find in 3 mins of searching. If I had a book of psychological studies then I'd be able to give you a better one sooner. There have been many studies over the years yielding similar results, if you are interested then find them. This isn't a debate. If it were then i'd have an obligation.

Well, if you didn't want a discussion, there wasn't much point to posting this.

Ask yourself this; given the earlier games, if the hardware and the engine had been capable of doing Oblivion/Skyrim level graphics, would they have done so? Limitations of the computers at the time could have limited what was done more than the morals/ethics/whatever.

Now that people are spamming this thread with song lyrics, it can close.