Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Quit Being Big Whiney Babies

228 replies to this topic
ToyGT_one
  • ToyGT_one

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2012
  • Bahrain

#211

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:29 PM

who you are? bashar assad with his army killing adults and kids in syria?

Hodgey.
  • Hodgey.

    GTA III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, IV, TLAD, TBoGT and V all 100%

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2008
  • None
  • Best Avatar 2012
    Winner of Euro 2012 Prediction League

#212

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:31 PM

QUOTE (ToyGT_one @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 14:29)
who you are? bashar assad with his army killing adults and kids in syria?

Im not sure who you are aiming that at but of course not, hes doing that for real destroying lives and the futures of families. I would be killing pixels in a game where no future or lives would be affected.

NTxC
  • NTxC

    GTA V.

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2006

#213

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:33 PM

There is not a single logical reason to not feature children ingame, because if killing an 18 year old adult is fine ingame, killing a child that's, say, 17 years 11 months 30 days 23 hours 59 seconds old is not much different. Is it?

Input
  • Input

    Pineapple

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 May 2009

#214

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:42 PM

Deus Ex had kids in it. I used to shoot the first one you met in Battery Park after he called my shades stupid.

TaazR
  • TaazR

    $$$

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#215

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:44 PM

All these people saying "kids should not be killed in video games" haven't provided any logical answer. The only argument they bring up is "they represent kids and they are innocent so they shouldn't be killed". By that logic why is it not taboo to kill animals in games (and real life)? Most animals are innocent and haven't hurt anybody, yet they still get brutally killed even if they aren't used for food. There is literally no difference between killing a 10 year old and a 20 year old. It's equally wrong to kill either. These masses are just too closed minded and hypocritical and for that reason the entertainment industry suffers because certain bullsh*t 'rules' have been imposed upon it. Hopefully one day video games/movies will allow everything in them, but I don't see that happening for a looong time because of these moral fags.

However, no I don't think kids should be in GTA. R* is a business, and in order for their business to succeed they need sales. If they add kids, they are simply going to lose huge profits because the closed minded people won't buy it, and on top of that it'll be banned in most countries. The game is fine as it is. Adding kids to games should be a gradual process. Slowly but surely it should be added to games less controversial than GTA and build its popularity up so people can open their minds to it.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#216

Posted 02 August 2013 - 02:39 PM

QUOTE (taazr @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 14:44)
Te masses are just too closed minded and hypocritical and for that reason the entertainment industry suffers because certain bullsh*t 'rules' have been imposed upon it.

You're making assumptions predicated on a sequence of autonomous chimeras, that don't even have the slightest sense of evident logical relation to each other, solely because they fit your 'argument'.

TaazR
  • TaazR

    $$$

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#217

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 14:39)
QUOTE (taazr @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 14:44)
Te masses are just too closed minded and hypocritical and for that reason the entertainment industry suffers because certain bullsh*t 'rules' have been imposed upon it.

You're making assumptions predicated on a sequence of autonomous chimeras, that don't even have the slightest sense of evident logical relation to each other, solely because they fit your 'argument'.


How do they not logically relate to one another? I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of people like you who think it's fine to kill animals and/or adults whom are innocent (in a game), yet when a kid is mentioned you suddenly consider them more valuable and claim they are 'innocent', even though the animal/adult is equally 'innocent'.

And stop nitpicking son. If you want to respond to my argument, then respond to all my points, not just the ones that suit you. It literally looks like you used a thesaurus on almost every word to make yourself seem more intellectual.

gta5freemode4eva
  • gta5freemode4eva

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2012

#218

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:07 PM Edited by gta5freemode4eva, 02 August 2013 - 03:13 PM.

@ hodgey and dope - Age is not a deciding factor in my argument, it was a starter question, still relevant, to get the ball rolling. I just don't see where it would stop and what NEED it would serve. I suppose it may add some kind of more immersive feel to the world, but I never drove around IV thinking, 'damn, if only there were kids here I would feel so much more "in" the game'. It never entered my head!

My argument is where would the immersive feel end? If you can beat up and do stuff with a prostitute in the game, I get the feeling that you lot would start to moan that we should be able to what whatever to ALL pixels... and thats just asking for something that doesn't NEED to be in the game.

What is it exactly you want the kids in the game for?? It just doesn't make sense. More immersive?

@ dope games + tv + movies does affect others. Its common sense to arrive at the sum that the law of averages states that there will be 1 kid who will play this game and it will have a certain impact on him. Now, this kids parents should bring him/her up knowing right from wrong but again the law of averages states this kid could have arsehole parents that don't give a sh*t. It only takes a few variables and you could very well end up with a case just like the James Bulgar event and if that can happen then why up the percentages of it happening. Yes tv movies etc ALL have the chance of having an affect, but with kids loving games, especially popular with young boys who lets face it are more aggressive than girls naturally as they are male (yes another argument I'm sure) then more young males will be playing GTA than lets say 'The Sims'.

My next door neighbors kid isn't allowed to play violent video games because it makes him violent. That's just next door. I've seen it myself, when he plays such games he becomes a violent little sh*t.

I just think that the risk outweighs the un-necessary 'addition' to the series.

This ofc isn't including the massive up-roar from every parent of a kid who owns the game and possible endless law suits and complaints against Rockstar that lets people, lets pick 1 scenario, put prams in the middle of roads only to have some kids, who just aren't using their brains (they're not necessarily evil) to go and copy. The pram might not have a kid in it, but the car that's coming down the road doesn't know this. He slams on his brakes, someone goes into the back of him etc etc etc...

Also - why did R* say 'No, Not ever, Never' to having kids in GTA. They must sense that it may not 'go down well'. If they could sense that killing animals in the game might get PETA to kick off, then having violence towards kids is quite massive in comparison.

Note - can you really starve people to death in the sims? Damn!! I gots to gets me dat game lol.gif wink.gif

Dope_0110
  • Dope_0110

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2013

#219

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:15 PM Edited by Dope_0110, 02 August 2013 - 03:21 PM.

@gta5freemode4eva

If you've missed it both hodgey and me do not ask for kids in GTA. We don't care if they are in or not.

We're just saying that if they were in that wouldn't make any player into an evil sent-from-hell pedophile. It would still be the same old GTA where we race, explore or do random acts of violence in a world that allows us to do so fur fun without any consequences, moral or physical with or without kids.

We just don't see nothing wrong if they would put them in because we completely separate that game world from our reality. Rockstar knows what people who think like you would act like and that's why they said no kids. They want to protect their golden cow after all. But I'm sure world will slowly loosen up and learn to differentiate and virtual reality will be just that.. a full presentation of real world where people can go and do whatever they like and can't do in real life.


EDIT: Yes you can.. my favorite used to be locking them in a pool as they couldn't get out without ladders before biggrin.gif

And your neighbour should have his kid under psychological observation.

Hodgey.
  • Hodgey.

    GTA III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, IV, TLAD, TBoGT and V all 100%

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2008
  • None
  • Best Avatar 2012
    Winner of Euro 2012 Prediction League

#220

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:19 PM

QUOTE (gta5freemode4eva @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 16:07)
@ hodgey and dope - Age is not a deciding factor in my argument, it was a starter question, still relevant, to get the ball rolling. I just don't see where it would stop and what NEED it would serve. I suppose it may add some kind of more immersive feel to the world, but I never drove around IV thinking, 'damn, if only there were kids here I would feel so much more "in" the game'. It never entered my head!

My argument is where would the immersive feel end? If you can beat up and do stuff with a prostitute in the game, I get the feeling that you lot would start to moan that we should be able to what whatever to ALL pixels... and thats just asking for something that doesn't NEED to be in the game.

What is it exactly you want the kids in the game for?? It just doesn't make sense. More immersive?

@ dope games + tv + movies does affect others. Its common sense to arrive at the sum that the law of averages states that there will be 1 kid who will play this game and it will have a certain impact on him. Now, this kids parents should bring him/her up knowing right from wrong but again the law of averages states this kid could have arsehole parents that don't give a sh*t. It only takes a few variables and you could very well end up with a case just like the James Bulgar event and if that can happen then why up the percentages of it happening. Yes tv movies etc ALL have the chance of having an affect, but with kids loving games, especially popular with young boys who lets face it are more aggressive than girls naturally as they are male (yes another argument I'm sure) then more young males will be playing GTA than lets say 'The Sims'.

My next door neighbors kid isn't allowed to play violent video games because it makes him violent. That's just next door. I've seen it myself, when he plays such games he becomes a violent little sh*t.

I just think that the risk outweighs the un-necessary 'addition' to the series.

This ofc isn't including the massive up-roar from every parent of a kids who owns the game and possible endless law suits against Rockstar that lets people put prams in the middle of roads only to have some kids, who just aren't using their brains (they're not necessarily evil) to go and copy. The pram might not have a kid in it, but the car that's coming down the road doesn't know this. He slams on his brakes, someone goes into the back of him etc etc etc...

Also - why did R* say 'No, Not ever, Never' to having kids in GTA. They must sense that it may not 'go down well'.

Yes of course it wouldnt go down well and the media uproar would be immense and the game wouldnt sell as well as it has done. I understand that sir and every other issue that may arise if you put children in a GTA game were you could kill them. However im not talking about sales or what the media might say etc, im just talking from my point of view on what i think on the issue and 100% understand why R* have said that they will never include children in the game.
I see your talking about the immersive issue and i understand that somethings can go to far, it wouldnt bother me killing children in the game however i would never say lets have them raping children or anything pedophile related as there does have to be a line (maybe that is a double standard on my part, i dont think so but.....) but i think killing has been in games for so long now what difference would it make to have smaller NPC that look like children in the game? We dont have rape games as it just isnt what games makers have made and i dont think people would accept it as openly as they have games were you can pretty much murder your way to the top. Again the point i think your missing from me is that it isnt the fact that i and people like Dope_0110 DONT NEED children in the game to make it better its the fact that having them in the game wouldnt be a issue from me and him and the other people who arent against it.
You also brought up your neighbours child and thats just him not everyone. He cant play violent games as his brain works different from mine just like everybodys brain is different in some way or form. Like i said in a previous post if i was your neighbours kid age i could play violent video games and it hasnt effected me one bit i contribute to society and dont break laws etc. You brought up one example out of how many million underage gamers?

AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#221

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:52 PM

QUOTE (ToyGT_one @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 09:29)
who you are? bashar assad with his army killing adults and kids in syria?

Maybe he's Benjamin Nitwityahoo in israel killing Palestinian babies while in their mothers arms?


Ahem, on topic:
You ask how young children in GTA should be? 18. Only make some of them midgets. That's as close as we'll ever get in our life times unless society gets even more perverted than it already is. By that time, "they" will be pushing for anal sex in games too! so killing babies and anal sex in GTA 2062. Glad I'll be dead by then.

gta5freemode4eva
  • gta5freemode4eva

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2012

#222

Posted 02 August 2013 - 04:02 PM Edited by gta5freemode4eva, 02 August 2013 - 04:11 PM.

@ hodgey - Yea I think he (neighbors kid) has some type of learning difficulties and has violent tenancies and it seems these two mixed together = a confused violent youngster that, for his benefit, is good to keep him calm.

Like yourself, I used to play violent video games when I was young and I've never done anything bad apart from kill that 1 family (lol - joke).

I can't see an end to the kids in GTA as a whole. If you put them in then they must be 'kill-able' I suppose. Its not very realistic running one of them down and them living. Same goes for attacking them with a baseball bat. Then people might want to strangle or hogtie them up etc etc... there wouldn't be a 'happy end'. If R* made kids invincible it wouldn't be immersive (however this could be an idea) as they can't die. If kids are kill-able then others would kick off and moan. Maybe we could all kill kids in real life and we won't have to have them in GTA and then everybody is happy!!... oh, hang on wink.gif

I'm just saying that I can't see a happy medium apart from what R* are already doing which is just leaving them out of the equation as its the easiest option.

Just to note that I wasn't basing my views on you (hodgey) or dope or any1 else but it was yourself and dope that I managed to begin to get my argument across as you both replied to my post. I can completely seperate pixels from real life, as like you say so does 99% of the people that play and watch such material. Unfortunantly there is 1% that are f*cked in the head and some material can send or inspire them to do nasty things. Apologies if I said or hinted upon anything un-appropriate. I guess it is that kind of topic that is, as proved, very debatable with lots of different views on the subject.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#223

Posted 02 August 2013 - 04:02 PM Edited by Raavi, 02 August 2013 - 04:28 PM.

QUOTE (taazr @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 16:04)
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of people like you who think it's fine to kill animals and/or adults whom are innocent (in a game), yet when a kid is mentioned you suddenly consider them more valuable and claim they are 'innocent', even though the animal/adult is equally 'innocent'.


At no point have I even as much as alluded to the senseless slaughter of adults and animals in video games being all fine and dandy. I merely referred to the commonly accepted line that has been drawn, which dictates that children should be omitted from video games, if their presence doesn't serve the narrative in a meaningful way, and is solely for the perverse of purpose of dominance, or just for the sake of 'immersion'. The latter being the case if children would be featured as NPCs in a GTA game. Therefore a line has been drawn, tolerating the killing of individuals who are perceived as mature in video games. Like it or not, the majority of society frowns upon the death / mistreatment of some beings more than others; children over adults; relative over stranger; cats, dogs, and horses over livestock; hamsters over ants. It's just the way the human psyche worse.

reddit39
  • reddit39

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 May 2013

#224

Posted 02 August 2013 - 04:11 PM Edited by reddit39, 02 August 2013 - 04:17 PM.

I did mention some logical and reasonable reasons kids shouldnt be in games with you can freely kill them.

As for everybody saying "sure, I played games when I was young, they did me no harm":

1 - The games then didnt have the same level of realism back then. Sure, they were rudimentally represented, but those expressions werent high resolution, and didnt possess advanced ragdoll/softbody physics and reactions.

2 - You cant speak for the entire population. Everybody is born with varying levels of intelligent and personality, can you REALLY say that playing violent acts in a videogame WONT adversely affect some impressionable child ? That combined with the possibility of them them enacting their virtual acts of violence on children on real life children ?

EDIT:

As for the "its a bunch of pixels, morals dont matter" argument, bullsh*t. Somebody drew a line somewhere, based on commonly accepted moral values. If it were a bunch of pixels, why not include a "rape minigame", or a ""underage abuse minigame" or whatever ? Some people have asked about that, and hey, its only a bunch of pixels ... nobody is hurt. Sure, they are ALL terrible reprehensible acts, rape, murder, abuse, of children, adults whatever .... But theyre all pixels ....

The reason we dont is because of some sense of morality, and I dont know who or what defines those moral values. The fact is, there is a common yet hard to quantify "moral boundary" that most people dont wanna cross. Thats why they wont include rape and abuse, and also children ....

Hodgey.
  • Hodgey.

    GTA III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, IV, TLAD, TBoGT and V all 100%

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2008
  • None
  • Best Avatar 2012
    Winner of Euro 2012 Prediction League

#225

Posted 02 August 2013 - 04:57 PM

QUOTE (gta5freemode4eva @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 17:02)
@ hodgey - Yea I think he (neighbors kid) has some type of learning difficulties and has violent tenancies and it seems these two mixed together = a confused violent youngster that, for his benefit, is good to keep him calm.

Like yourself, I used to play violent video games when I was young and I've never done anything bad apart from kill that 1 family (lol - joke).

I can't see an end to the kids in GTA as a whole. If you put them in then they must be 'kill-able' I suppose. Its not very realistic running one of them down and them living. Same goes for attacking them with a baseball bat. Then people might want to strangle or hogtie them up etc etc... there wouldn't be a 'happy end'. If R* made kids invincible it wouldn't be immersive (however this could be an idea) as they can't die. If kids are kill-able then others would kick off and moan. Maybe we could all kill kids in real life and we won't have to have them in GTA and then everybody is happy!!... oh, hang on  wink.gif

I'm just saying that I can't see a happy medium apart from what R* are already doing which is just leaving them out of the equation as its the easiest option.

Just to note that I wasn't basing my views on you (hodgey) or dope or any1 else but it was yourself and dope that I managed to begin to get my argument across as you both replied to my post. I can completely seperate pixels from real life, as like you say so does 99% of the people that play and watch such material. Unfortunantly there is 1% that are f*cked in the head and some material can send or inspire them to do nasty things. Apologies if I said or hinted upon anything un-appropriate. I guess it is that kind of topic that is, as proved, very debatable with lots of different views on the subject.

Honestly mate i get every opinion that you have given and understand why you would feel that way but i have a different view on this, doesnt mean that im right and you're wrong thats just the way opinions are. You havent said anything innapropriate at all to me and this was a discussion not a arguement as i respect your opinion. Like you said its the 1% or nutters that ruin it for the rest of us.

But lets get children in GTA so we can kill the little f*ckers. smile.gif

TaazR
  • TaazR

    $$$

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#226

Posted 02 August 2013 - 05:00 PM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 16:02)
QUOTE (taazr @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 16:04)
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of people like you who think it's fine to kill animals and/or adults whom are innocent (in a game), yet when a kid is mentioned you suddenly consider them more valuable and claim they are 'innocent', even though the animal/adult is equally 'innocent'.


At no point have I even as much as alluded to the senseless slaughter of adults and animals in video games being all fine and dandy. I merely referred to the commonly accepted line that has been drawn, which dictates that children should be omitted from video games, if their presence doesn't serve the narrative in a meaningful way, and is solely for the perverse of purpose of dominance, or just for the sake of 'immersion'. The latter being the case if children would be featured as NPCs in a GTA game. Therefore a line has been drawn, tolerating the killing of individuals who are perceived as mature in video games. Like it or not, the majority of society frowns upon the death / mistreatment of some beings more than others; children over adults; relative over stranger; cats, dogs, and horses over livestock; hamsters over ants. It's just the way the human psyche worse.

I understand what you're trying to say, but even if you are not 'fine and dandy' with harming adults and animals (even though it doesn't serve the narrative), you're not against it, yet you're against having children in it. Strong double standards. A life is a life. I understand that if it is your own life, or the life of a relative, you are going to see it as more valuable than a stranger's life because it's human nature. But if it's not your relative's life in question, I don't get why people suddenly think a 9 year old's life is more valuable than a 19 year old's life. Nevermind it being a video game, when there is no life in question at all, it's just pixels as it has been said before. Even though these pixels represent real life, the sick stuff will happen in real life regardless. Better someone doing it in a game than in real life.

This common 'line that has been drawn' only holds back humanity. Just like the religious nuts preventing/delaying stuff like cloning, stem cell experiments, and other new medical technologies from becoming mainstream. If something does not affect you personally in a negative way, I see no reason to impose your will on others. Live and let live.

Noeks
  • Noeks

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2012

#227

Posted 02 August 2013 - 05:01 PM

user posted image

gta5freemode4eva
  • gta5freemode4eva

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2012

#228

Posted 02 August 2013 - 05:36 PM Edited by gta5freemode4eva, 02 August 2013 - 05:49 PM.

QUOTE (Hodgey1989 @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 16:57)
QUOTE (gta5freemode4eva @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 17:02)
@ hodgey - Yea I think he (neighbors kid) has some type of learning difficulties and has violent tenancies and it seems these two mixed together = a confused violent youngster that, for his benefit, is good to keep him calm.

Like yourself, I used to play violent video games when I was young and I've never done anything bad apart from kill that 1 family (lol - joke).

I can't see an end to the kids in GTA as a whole. If you put them in then they must be 'kill-able' I suppose. Its not very realistic running one of them down and them living. Same goes for attacking them with a baseball bat. Then people might want to strangle or hogtie them up etc etc... there wouldn't be a 'happy end'. If R* made kids invincible it wouldn't be immersive (however this could be an idea) as they can't die. If kids are kill-able then others would kick off and moan. Maybe we could all kill kids in real life and we won't have to have them in GTA and then everybody is happy!!... oh, hang on  wink.gif

I'm just saying that I can't see a happy medium apart from what R* are already doing which is just leaving them out of the equation as its the easiest option.

Just to note that I wasn't basing my views on you (hodgey) or dope or any1 else but it was yourself and dope that I managed to begin to get my argument across as you both replied to my post. I can completely seperate pixels from real life, as like you say so does 99% of the people that play and watch such material. Unfortunantly there is 1% that are f*cked in the head and some material can send or inspire them to do nasty things. Apologies if I said or hinted upon anything un-appropriate. I guess it is that kind of topic that is, as proved, very debatable with lots of different views on the subject.

Honestly mate i get every opinion that you have given and understand why you would feel that way but i have a different view on this, doesnt mean that im right and you're wrong thats just the way opinions are. You havent said anything innapropriate at all to me and this was a discussion not a arguement as i respect your opinion. Like you said its the 1% or nutters that ruin it for the rest of us.

But lets get children in GTA so we can kill the little f*ckers. smile.gif



@ reddit - Good points. Like I was saying to Hodgey, your right there would need to be a line drawn and I believe that line is already there by excluding the little guys/girls.

@ Hodgey - gotta lol at that lol.gif

I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not a 'oh my god kids shouldn't play these games and kids should not be in them'... (yes I know my argument is complete opposite)... but that's because like I said to reddit, there needs to be a line. Yes it would have some comic value to bash some little spotty loud mouth little sh*t teen round the head with a 9 iron, or 1 wood, or baseball, or a brick, or maybe a truck... but then could we handcuff em? put em in the trunk... and it could get worse and worse and darker and darker. This is why the Age thing came about because if they allow say down to 12 year olds, why not 10? then 8? then down to toddlers... then prams n newborns... Soon enough we could be tee-ing off with embryos lol icon14.gif Well they do have a 9-hole golf course biggrin.gif

Rock Howard
  • Rock Howard

    Some Aussie Dude.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2006
  • Australia

#229

Posted 03 August 2013 - 03:31 AM

QUOTE (The Pizza Delivery Guy @ Thursday, Aug 1 2013, 21:59)
And yeah I'm 16... but I'm a lot more mature than I look. Put me next to anyone else in my grade at school and you'd see.

Those who claim to be more mature than their peers are often, in reality just the opposite.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users