Society says "adventures will be back" ?

[m0ds]

(This is a bit of a rant, with personal views - but a positive outcome  )

This is not a finalised, true or proven theory but it's a nice one none the less. Over the past ten or twelve years we've all noticed a decline in "sales" of adventure games. Nowadays a lot are holding up pretty well and will sell reasonably around the globe, but an adventure game will probably never beat an FPS on the charts, right?

I remember not so long ago, a television program on terrestrial - well, it was a bit more like propoganda lol - It featured Mr Dyson (the chap behind the vacuum device with the same name) explaining how our world is capable of becoming a giant production beast, the Eastern side of the world being our worlds "manufacturers" and so forth. I don't remember it exactly, but his concept of the world & its countries working like cogs actually sounded quite exciting.

He stressed how younger generations now NEED to be brought up with more practical goals in mind (his final words were, "Rise up engineers!"). He talked about a serious decline in people wanting to be engineers, inventors, blah de blah because everyone wants to be famous etc.

To be fair a lot of what he said was bollocks, the wide range of ITV celebrity-only audience at the speech were probably told just to look interested!! I can't imagine Ant nor Dec knew what he was on about

Anyway, digressing from point. So he wants education to focus more on people's/kids mistakes so they can learn from them. Design & technology lessons would not be "Build this" it would be "Build what you want, f**k up, learn from it & get better at it" - which in theory, could be good.

And, we all know the British government at least are going to be looking into better education methods in the near future...

That's the first part.

The second part is the whole video-game market. Violence sells, that's for sure. With San Andreas, Rockstar have grown even further in their endeavour to be the most vulgar & explicit game company in the UK.* Grrrreat. (+ Football Factory [tho thats a film], pretty nasty - if it IS a true story, one about football, football violence, class A drugs etc perhaps it's just best left burnt & forgotten, rather than brought to screen?)

[NOTE: The reason you'll very rarely see someone from the UK actually smile could be because our TV shows depict nothing but misery, emotional problems & violence/sex. We don't have any "good times" shows, like Friends. Oh wait, we get "Gimme Gimme Gimme" but there's really very little funny about gays & fat ugly sluts) It seems to me that everyone's been dragged down into this "dull" frame of mind. No good times. Well, whatever, I'm just ranting now ]

I'll always have strong views on this, but that's cos i'm a family entertainment kinda guy. Well, maybe excluding sex... But there's nothing glorious at all about violence IMO.

I remember not so long ago reading that a kid was killed by another kid who had played Manhunt, and Manhunt was subsequently taken off the shelves because of it. This then caused a stir and I was under the impression the games industry - even if only briefly, and even if only in the UK - paused for a moment & wondered if they were really doing the right thing.

Again, IMO, they're not. I mean, why is violence so fascinating?

What happened to the age of story-telling?

Anyhoo - the number of killings induced by violent computer games is only going to rise, should they continue to bring out almost meaningless titles like Manhunt, that have no real purpose other than to satisfy sadistic minds (Oh, I can't kill for real - I know I'll do it within a computer game. Yesh, that's cool.)

If you remember, Al Q'aeda supposedly used Flight Simulator to work out the co-ords of the twin towers. So in theory, a computer game acted as "instruction." That makes Manhunt instruction. That makes San Andreas instruction, but at the same time - thank god, it makes adventure games instruction.

You and I are all puzzle solving people day by day, we enjoy adventures that arise, we look at problems with the excitement of finding a solution. We are adventure fans.

Now, what do fans of certain other games get up too? **

Whoa! This is the part where I make my point :p...

Computer games can, obviously, assist in a young persons education, or even in an adults (take Al Q'aeda again for eg.) In thirty, forty years from now I think the government/s will finally catch on that music, films, games - all media, can seriously affect the way a person thinks, feels & lives (I really wish they'd catch on now and filter that obscene-Rap out! GRR!) ***

So kids are exposed to computer games. The majority of them meaningless, entertainment only & some of them plain & simply wrong. There's already talk of classifying music like they do films, or something of a similar nature (about time too).

So the MAIN point! LOL. I think adventure games, point & clicks and intelligent puzzle games are going to find their way quite subtly back in society in the not so distant future, because more and more people will realise that games like that can actually assist in the development of a human being. Schools may look into using adventure games to tell stories for children, but include interaction. We already saw Ron Gilbert make some education-adventure game material.

Adventure will become main-stream again.

But probably not in 2D, which is a real shame

What d'you think?






* Don't get me wrong, I do like San Andreas, but so do a million 12 year olds. That just ain't right, Rockstar.

** I don't mean everybody, but enough people to make a valid point.

*** Again, I like D12... But I'm 21. Not 12.

[Privateer Puddin']

So the MAIN point! LOL. I think adventure games, point & clicks and intelligent puzzle games are going to find their way quite subtly back in society in the not so distant future, because more and more people will realise that games like that can actually assist in the development of a human being. Schools may look into using adventure games to tell stories for children, but include interaction. We already saw Ron Gilbert make some education-adventure game material.

Things go around in fashions, i'm sure fps will be seen as old hat soon, just as RPGs a few years ago were almost dead. Limited style adventure game thingies are being used in education, at my first school (5-6) , I had help with english (special needs english) because i'm dyslexic and there was a parser game, quite adventure ish with 2 puzzles so i'm sure it's already in education somewhere

GTA is increasingly becoming about more than just violence, it is becoming so epic in scale, and i don't think it's too violent, if you said Rockstar North were trying to become most violent with Manhunt, i might have agreed

and a final point from me, who are D12?

[m0ds]

becoming about more than just violence

Aye, now you can almost believe you're living a real life within the game, PLUS violence. The only epic thing IMO is that the cities are getting bigger & the amount of things, normal & violent - are increased. It's not like you can set up a business, mend cars or what not though tommeh, is it.

If you broke down DOTT for example it would be about:
- Time travel (past, present + future)
- American ancestors
- Funny humour

If you broke down GTA:
- Crime, drugs
- Sex
- Death/violence
- Reckless driving

Right... Yay. Great.

But I agree with you about education adventures - now that you mention it we had a couple on the ol' RM Nimbus 286 at Primary school - things like Granny's Garden (though thats probably more puzzle based than it is an adventure!!)

[Privateer Puddin']

Full Throttle
Biker Gangs
Murder and being framed
Bike fights
Revenge and more murder

ahem..

[Privateer Puddin']

You and I are all puzzle solving people day by day, we enjoy adventures that arise, we look at problems with the excitement of finding a solution. We are adventure fans.

Hmm, i dunno, i could quite happily watch something like the dig or ft, without having to do the puzzles, i don't really like puzzles too much, and have no problem using a walkthrough to see the next cutscene etc.

[m0ds]

LOL Tom Can't be arsed to get nit-picky with you dude - you know what I'm talking about here!!

You and I are all puzzle solving people day by day, we enjoy adventures that arise, we look at problems with the excitement of finding a solution. We are adventure fans.

Hmm, i dunno, i could quite happily watch something like the dig or ft, without having to do the puzzles, i don't really like puzzles too much, and have no problem using a walkthrough to see the next cutscene etc.

Puh, you take the easy option! This is why people get fat

[Privateer Puddin']

oooh diss etc

i don't think i'm an adventure game fan because of the puzzles, at the time they were alone in offering good stories, exploration, wonderful atmosphere etc so why shouldn't i use a walkthrough if i want to?

[MrColossal]

I just want to say, Mods. If you read more about the kid killing his friend over Manhunt you'd learn that the kid killed because he had outstanding drug debts and needed money. The victim was the one that owned Manhunt not the killer. There's no evidence that the killer ever played it.

Also, it is in no way the Governments business to filter out anything. I play violent videogames, I listen to violent music [sometimes] and I read violent comics and draw violent images. I would never in my life hurt someone.

This is true for the majority of people in the world. It's up to the parents to raise a responsible kid not the Government to rule out anything that could possible make a kid have an emotion.

But anyway, I don't see a grand revolution of adventure games and I don't see fps games going away because they are easy to make and sometimes fun. Maybe when the gaming kids grow up they will want something more than just run and gun action and seek out something else, and maybe it will be adventure games, but it could just as easily be wargames or dating simulators. The best thing we can do is just keep plugging along and wait for the AGS crowd to grow up more and start their own companies...

* MrColossal checks the in production forum

Oh wait, never mind! RUN FOR THE HILLS!

[m0ds]

Ahh Eric, apologies. I stand corrected! My version was from the street so as you say I should have read up about it. There are similar cases, like the Buldger case and the Hungerford incident (I admit Rambo is a film not a game) - a reassuring 15 miles away from me!! Hand-guns were only banned in 1996, here.

I just feel a little more censorship for younger people wouldn't go a miss, and that can come quite perfectly, and innocently - in adventure games.


ps - puh, we were fed a lot more of the Rambo stuff in Media studies than that article says. bbc airs Rambo time to time.

[HillBilly]

About that manhunt thing... You know the guy killed that kid because he wanted money for drugs? And it was the kid that played manhunt, the killer didn't have a single copy of it. Besides, people who kill someone because they've played a computer game, is obviously crazy, and would flip out at one point or another.

Myself, I've been playing violent games since the age of 11, and watched violent movies since the age of 7. I'm not a violent person, and I try to avoid real-life violence as often as I can. Still, I play games where you can chop of people's heads and kick them around, piss on the body, and kill their dog. Heck, this christmas, I made a flash game where you run around the north pole slaughtering elves with a machete wearing a hockey mask*(Got front page on Newgrounds.com, woo)!

I also listen to violent music, like ICP. Maybe not the smartest stuff around, but I like it and that's good enough for me. I also listen to stuff like GWAR, Rage Against the Machine, the DOTT soundtrack, Madness etc. Heck, even country!(Except that kind of country where some guy sits with his guitar, crying about how far from home he is. Bring on the hardcore banjo's, bitches!)

So to conclude, I don't think media violence makes you a violent person, unless you're really dumb. And since most of the world is bright people, I...

Nevermind. You win.


*No, the guy were wearing a hockey mask, not the machete.

[Kinoko]

All I can really say on the matter is that GTA shocks me everytime I see an ad for it on tv, and it's one of the few games I've ever seen that I really do think should be banned. There have been games about stealing and being the "bad guy" before, but they were really portrayed in a totally fantastical game-like world. This game is TOO real, and dare I say it, 'gritty'. I don't think anyone's gonna play it and go out stealing cars and raping women, but I DO think it's gonna loosen up the morals for more than a few people. I think games like this SHOULD shock us but for the generation getting into gaming now, this will be the norm.

[BerserkerTails]

Like I've said countless times before, and coutless times again, I personally believe that Video Games are harmless 99% of the time. I think that for a video game to inspire a child to do something wrong/illegal/immoral, the child would either have to have a mental condition before hand which would blur the line between game and reality, or be the victim of bad parents.

Way too often are children these days being rased solely by their TVs (And pretty soon, the internet), while their parents give them very little attention. I know that my parents raised me correctly (I'm 17, almost 18 now), and I have never once felt the urge to repeat any violent or illegal acts in video games.

As for the video games themselves, I see no problem with them. If someone is thouroughly disgusted or offended by a video game, they should just avoid it in the future. Banning and Censorship of someone's art (Yes, video games are art) is something I'm definitely against in almost every case.

People often bring up Manhunt in these discussions. I personally have never played the game, but I've heard vivid descriptions of it's many brutal scenes (From friends, not the biased media against the game), and I do think it's very violent. But do I think it should be banned for it's violence? No! A group of people worked very hard on that game, and they probably find it insulting that so many people want it banned.

Going back to something you said m0ds, I would rather meet someone who found killing another person in a video game fun rather than meeting someone who found killing another person in real life fun. I don't think video games are meant to be instructional (Except Edutainment), but to provide an escape from reality. They're supposed to be fun.

Video games were created as a form of entertainment, and now as technology continues to advance, video games are becoming even more of a viable and recognized art form. I remember when I first played Final Fantasy VII and was amazed at the world that had been created within it, at the plot, and the cinematic-quality the entire game had.

But even though I prefer games like RPGs and Adventures, that sitll doesn't mean that I didn't break a Sega Genesis (Mega Drive) controller playing Mortal Kombat. The thing was, I didn't play it because of the violence in it, but because it was fun.

Murders and violence have been around since the first Humans roamed the planet. Video Games are just an easy place for the media to put the blame. Before them, it was movies, and before that it was Rock and Roll music. In the future, who knows what will be the next scapegoat?

[Kinoko]

...and you know, 99% of the time, I'm an even more avid believer of that than you, BT ^_^ I have the most verbally violent discussions with people about censorship and how it pisses me off. I get rather murderous about it.

This game though, it really pisses me off. I haven't even played it, but god, I'm sick of seeing ads for it on tv. This goes for a lot of games though. Do I expect games like Spiro and Banjo Kazooey (whatever...) to be banned? No. Would I do a dance if they were? Sure! I hate them, and I think they're a great example of everything wrong in gaming today.

Games like San Andreas get my goat, so to speak. When I think about people playing them, I really see a severe deterioration in the brains of children. Wouldn't it be nice if they were intelligent enough to realise these games are stupid, and to not play them, and bring well-thought out, entertaining games back to the market? That'd be awesome, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, we're bringing up a generation of kids who are going to be the future consumers that encourage more movies like 'You Got Served' and 'The Fast and the Furious' to be made, and to do well. "Singers" like '50 cent' will be everywhere, and pants will be lower than ever.

I look at it this way. Kids these days are not the gaming generation mine and the ones before mine were - they're too impressionable. They don't play things and go "Wow, I really, really enjoy this game. I appreciate it's engine and the plot is amazing". They see TV and their little next-to-the-counter kiddy magazines, and they get the impression that a certain thing is "the game to play", "that game everyone is playing", "that game you must play or risk being out of the loop" and they [get their parents to] buy it. They play it, using all the FAQs straight away because god forbid I haven't finished it immediately without finding all the secret things and unlockable character costumes, on their shitty little playstations because EVERYONE has a playstation (yes, let's throw sense out the window people) and they start talking like 'ganstas', stealing cars to get attention from their excellently attentive  parents and before you know it, everyone's speaking Korean and doing death marches.

I blame this game for the future that's about to become the present but much worse.

[Ozwalled]

WARNING: THIS POST INCLUDES RECOUNTS OF EXPLICIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND IS NOT FOR MINORS OR THE "WEAK OF HEART". EXTREME DISCRESSION IS ADVISED. I'M 100% SERIOUS.

(and if you are too stubborn to not read if you're young or squeamish, then at least don't read the paragraphs with a * beside them)

I had a similar discussion to this one with a friend just about a week ago. I tend to lean toward the side of video games being a lot less harmful than some people believe.

Having reviewed some of the psychology papers published about the subject of violence in video games leading to violent behaviour, one of the major problems I have withtem is what they qualify as "violent". A lot of the behaviour that they're observing and recording in people, is, I think, not so much violent as it is "aggressive". And though the line there may be blurry for some people, to me it's not all that hard to see the distinction.

I remember watching "ninja movies" when I was a kid. For the next half hour or more, I was more amped up than one might think possible, chopping through the air, kicking at things, and making "wa!" and "hiYA!" noises; if I had friends around to play fight with, we probably would after such a movie event. I play Soul Calibur or something or watch wrestling now and in my mind, I'm thinking "woah! What a cool move!". However, I never, now then and not now, went up to people and engaged in an actual, non-consentual fight with them. I didn't whack someone with a chair or a stick. I didn't attack anyone. Sure, I got in the occasional fight, but it was usually when my back was against the wall and in a situation where I (or someone I cared about) was going to get creamed otherwise.

Am I desensitized to what "violence" is, then? I'm not so sure. Though I've not yet played any of the modern GTA games (and please, here, remember that no one's talking about the old, overhead perspective ones anymore... and keep in mind that THEY were the source of all kinds of controversy when they first came out), I can say without hyperbole that "Def Jam: Fight for New York" is one of the most brutal, violent games out there today. Why? Because it's one of the few games I've see that seems legitimately VIOLENT.

*Now, I've played a lot of the Mortal Kombat games, tearing out hearts, spines and limbs in the process. I've impaled characters on spikes and torn their heads off. And in a Looney Tunes game or two, I've dropped anvils on characters, if I recall right (I might not -- it's been awhile). But not before Def Jam: FFNY did I take a guy by the rear waist of his pants, bend him over and brutally ram his face into a brick pillar (or better yet, a pool table), then stomp it again from behind. I actually found myself cringing at the degree of violence in that game more than any other.

*But surely having your face smashed is NOTHING compared to getting your whole HEAD punched off your shoulders, right? Wrong. While one is something that's half-likely to happen in a brutal fight in the real world, the OTHER is nothing less than cartoon violence (I'll leave it up to you to figure out which is which). And people can make that distinction. It's like all the craziness in Kill Bill. The violence in that movie seemed TAME to me, because it was so foolishly cartoony that it was almost laughable. Comare someone getthing their arm cut off in Kill Bill: Vol 1 to one of the helpless Jews from Shindler's List getting coldly shot in the skull at point blank range and having what looks like teddybear stuffing fly out of the "exit wound" side of the head, and I'm betting the audience flinches at Shindler's List EACH AND EVERY TIME. And it's not because it was based on real events. It's because it was shot in a way that made you believe and realize the brutal possibility of it all.

*The most hideous act I've seen in a  movie latley was in a scene in a film called "Irreversable" (it was a foreign language film, but I forget what language, or what the original title is... Also, keep in mind that I didn't watch the whole thing): there was this scene at a club. In it, there was this group of guys pestering some of the drunken gay people at the club. Eventually, one of the guys lost it and started beating one of the gay guys up. It was a bit hard to watch, but nothing crazy yet. THEN, when it seemed like it was all going to be over and the fight was "won" by the aggressor (the gay guy was semi conscious on his back, on the floor), he proceeded to grab a fire extinguisher and bash the guy's face in with the butt of it. You saw the gritty details of the face being cut up by the blows, followed by the eventual slight deformation of bone structure, follwed by the whole head being turned into a pulp. And it was all shot in a way that YOU might have been one of the nightclub onlookers, too fixated on the "car wreck" nature of the whole scene to pull your gaze away. I was shocked. I was stunned. My pulse was racing and I felt like I'd seen the whole thing happen myself. I didn't know what else to do, so I changed channel and tried to calm meyself down. What I'd watched wasn't the over-the top kind of violence I'd seen so many times before -- it FELT REAL. And it was insane.

And still, it didn't make me want to go out and hurt anyone. It made me want to curl up in a ball and whimper.

Finally, I'll use the example of my watching pro wrestling (scripted and choreographed) vs. watching the Ultimate Fighting Championship (a "real" 1 on 1 fighting event). If Ric Flair gets cut open again in his latest match, it's just a part of the whole show for me, but when someone in the UFC gets busted wide open or dropped on their head or kicked hard in the leg, I feel a bit of it and cringe, knowing "that must have hurt a lot". Watching the UFC may be a bit harder, but unlike "Irreversible", I don't get compelled to change channel: the people fighting are, after all, doing it for a living and are in there consentually. The fighters, though intending to HURT each other, very rarely seem intent on doing any permanent damage to mame an opponent. It's an unwritten code of respect, I guess, and that helps take it more from violence (where there would be some sort of truly unwanted violation of one a person's being) to physical aggression (where they're fighting, but they're both aware of how things are supposed to work), in my mind. When a figther breaks the rules, and say, elbows the other fighter in the back of the head or deliberately delivers a kick to the groin, the line is crossed.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that I'm being very focused in what I'm trying to say here, so I'll try to finish this all up. The large majority of the "violence" out there in today's games (and movies and TV) is over-the-top enough that it feels cartoony and unrealistic. Most all of us can see that it's "make-believe" violence (at least partly due to a more or less "3rd person omnicient" kind of view of the scene) or as consentual aggression (in the case of "legitimate" full-contact sports), and we treat it accordingly. Furthermore, the media is rarely ambiguous about repeatedly reinforcing the roles of the sides of "good vs. bad" when it comes to violence (1-on-1 fighting games being the most frequent exception). With all of this, I think that normal people are able to easily make the right decisions when it comes to violence and whether or not to act in a violent manner. And while "violence" in media like film and video games probably does increase agression and aggressive/ violent thoughts, too few of us are likely to act on them in a very real way to start BANNING video games.

(On a side note, though, I really do think that MATURE ratings should really be enfored more at stores selling games. A lot of games out there simply shouldn't be played by kids who lack the full maturity to make a lot of the distinctions I'm talking about here.)

I leave you with a final thought: violence is more likley to occur in the average Western home moreso than anywhere else outside of it, and it's most likely to be directed toward women or children, by men. This has been going on for AGES, well before video games or movies or rock music or gangsta' rap or even the popularity of books. And today, a man is probably still more likely to get violent with his wife and/or kid(s) after seeing his favorite sports team lose (even with lax sports like baseball) than he is to do so after playing Manhunt, or Doom 3, or GTA or whatever. Anger's probably still more likely a culprit to violence than is virtually shooting up or beating up whoever, and the predominant "cartoony" violence in games and film isn't likely to be that which is modelled by the violators.

EDIT: As far as how this relates to adventure games and whether or not they'll be back... I dunno. I can see their potential and their use as educational tools... but I'm not so sure that it'll be a reaction to violence so much as it's a good medium/ format to learn different things in. A lot of other genres have, well, a bit too much in the "walking around" department, which is why I'd not see them being as obvious a choice to a developper of educational software (don't get me wrong -- I'd wager pretty much any game engine has a lot of learning potetial. You could have a whole scince/ physics fair with a game done with the HalfLife 2 engine, for example). I see the Adventure genre makeing a comeback in newer engines, disguised as other genres (think Deus Ex, Arx Fatalis, Metroid Prime, Planescape: Torment and even Half-Life 1&2 and Doom 3) or as web-based things (keeping with the trend of the many "retro" style flash games that crop up everywhere, only less action-oriented than most).  I really do feel that the major downfall of adventure games, beyond anything else, is the lack of action in them, which a lot of the game companies think audiences might think of as boring. Once the storytelling/ puzzle-solving of adventure games starts getting mixed into the action of more, quality games, it'll start becomming more and more common, I figure, even if these games don't ever get labelled as being of the "adventure" genre by anyone at all.

[BerserkerTails]

Okay, as much as I didn't like San Andreas, I think you're judging it pretty harshly for not having even played it. Whereas I'm right beside you in despising the media for telling kids what to wear and how to act (Everyone thinks I'm from the 70s because I wear different clothes from the mainstream), I have to give San Andreas credit.

If you look at it, sure the main character might be stealing cars, and killing prostitutes, but the game certainly has it's merits. First all, it's got a very distinct style, unlike most games which come out today all looking the same, and the plot is , from what I've heard (And judging from the series' previous game "Vice City", which I did play), very expansive and fleshed out.

The reason the game is so popular isn't because the media is telling it to be popular, but because it actually has some substance. Though it might be from the same cookie-cutter mold that it's predeccessors came from, it still is outside the generic mold for today's "Cinematic-Action" games.

Though you may not like it, as do I, it shouldn't be blamed for the problems caused by today's youth.

[Kinoko]

Oz: Nicely put ^_^ I feel the same. I love chopping peoples' heads off and stomping on them, slashing them with swords etc in fighting games. I also love really ... well, let's just say I'm totally into my violent games and movies. You get those things that portray violence as it would be in real life, and even though it may be a whole lot less "brutal" and bloody, it can make you feel sick because it IS like seeing it happen to someone in real life.

[DGMacphee]

Here's my thoughts on the situation. Yeah, DG with an opinion. Who'da thunk it?

I think a lot of people miss the point of GTA. I've read numerous articles that say that GTA is a satire on urban society. Likewise, with Manhunter as a satire on reality television (I never played the game, but heard the story was some kind of TV show where you have to kill or be killed. Am I right about this?). I agree with this line of thought. The violence in GTA is basically a reflection of the violence outside your windows. And in many ways, this functions in the same way as Day of the Tentacle, which was a satire on American history and the future.

By banning GTA, what you're essentially doing is shielding your eyes to what's happening in the world. Drug dealers exist. Violence exists. People who beat up old women exist. What GTA is is a simulation of these kinds of realities. Granted, an extreme simulation of reality, but satire takes such aspects to the extreme in order to make a point. And I think the point is clear: We live in a violent world, with or without GTA. In fact, violence has existed (and in some ways has been more extreme) waaay before video games.

As for kids playing these games, no. To mention young kids playing these games is the worst point-of-view you can ever use in this type of discussion. Why? Because young kids aren't even supposed to be playing these games in the first place. There is ratings advice clearly stated on the packaging of each game, and all are rated by each government organisation in each respective country. Now, if the child accidently gets a copy -- say a retailer sells the kid a copy of GTA without thought to the ratings advice -- is the fault on the retailer? Sure. Putting profit ahead of responsibility is a terrible thing to do. It's like a car company that cuts back on safety features in order to widen their profit margin.

However, many kids are still allowed to play these games despite what happens to the retailers. I find many parents are lax in their duties to monitor what their kids are doing. I feel parents should decide and control what their kids actually play, based upon the amount of responsibility they see their kids display. For example, if I had a son (god forbid!) and he spent most of his time trying to set the cat of fire, I'd think "Hmmm, maybe GTA would screw my kid up even more." If on the other hand, my son was a polite kid who did his chores, his homework, my tax refund, and then asked if he could play GTA, I'd think, "Well, the kid's been good and doesn't display any psychotic tendancies, so maybe he's okay to play GTA. In fact, just to be an even better parent, I'll play a few games with him."

Everyone got their knickers in a twist over the incident where a kid was bashed with a hammer ala Munhunt. As Eric said, the biff was over "drug debts and and money." Now my question is this: Why is there such a huge controversy over the kid playing Munhunt (which he didn't as has been said in this thread) when the real question should be how the kid managed to accumulate drug debts in the first place?? Once again, a lack of decent parenting IMO. Parents should know if their kids have drug debts in the first place, and then say, "Hmm, how did my kid get drug debts? Maybe I should, I don't know, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?? Like try and stop him from getting his hands on more drugs."

And that's the real problem here. We live in a society to is so self-obsessed. Parents are a selfish bunch that they figure, "Hey, we don't need to worry about out kids. We'll get buy a copy of Finding Nemo, set the kid in front of the tube while we go back to getting pissed on dry martinis and worrying about our own insignificant problems. Like whether we should have red wine or white wine with dinner tonight. Oh dear! The tragedy! Life is tough being a parent! Take pity on me!" Screw pity. You had the kids. You look after them, you arseholes!

My point is this: Parents, take some fucking interest in what your kids do. Don't use tired bullshit excuses like, "Oh, we're too busy." My arse! See, it's only when something goes wrong, like say a kid gets bashed with a hammer, that parents start taking an interest. The problem is they start blaming everything except themselves. They blame video games. They blame music. They blame the fact there's no prayer in public schools. But not once does it cross their minds, "Hey maybe we should take our thumbs out of out butts!"

See, a shooting game can be educational. Five years ago, I would have never thought it. I thought adventure games were where it's at.

Then I played games like Hitman, GTA, and Deus Ex. Especially Deus Ex.

Hitman taught me about how the fragile psychology of a human being can get so twisted during upbringing that he's taught to be violent. It asks questions like: Are we designed with a purpose in mind? Can any of us really find salvation or redemption? And one of the greatest moments comes at he end of the second game. I won't spoil it, but if you haven't played it, do it now.

Deus Ex taught me that a game can be deep. In fact, Deus Ex is probably the deepest game I've played. It speaks so much about the human condition and our relationship with higher beings. Is man really made in the image of God? Are we to emulate God to the point where we become God? I'm sure Nietzsche would have had a field day playing Deus Ex. Not only that, the game practically predicts a Sept 11-type scenario even though it was made (I think) four years before Sept 11 even happened. And look at the symbolism: the Statue of Liberty destroyed. Fuck you, Charlton Heston. Your damned dirty apes movie has nothing on the symbolism in Deus Ex.

As for GTA, I've explained the idea behind it: Violence exists, with or without GTA. For me, to say GTA isn't educational is basically being ignorant of the world around you. Compare that to another PS2 game... something like Britney's Dance Beat, which is just another cheap and shitty way to make money of the Britney Spears image. No substance. No filling. No quality. No way!

Now, having said all that, consider this: I think someone should start a petition to ban Dada: Stagnation In Blue. Aparently, it's way more controversial that GTA after having nabbed the most controversial game award on DIY Games.

http://diygames.com/index.php?p=450&more=1&page=9

It is an adventure game, after all. Yet, it contains just about as much controvesy as GTA. (Personally, I think Dada is a piece of shit. Not my finest moment). What about other violent, but brilliant, adventure games, some written by us? Like Bearly Sane? Pleurghburg? You see, I'm not sure if you can focus on games like GTA as being vulgar and violent without some retrospect on adventure games. I mean, if someone says that adventure games can educate while FPS are just plain violent, then I think that person is just being selective and not looking at the whole picture. I think any medium, adventures or shooters, can educate and enhance our understanding. I think it's unfair to label all shooters as violent and ugly. Not only that, sometimes the most violent of games can teach us the greatest of lessons. Sure, there's nothing glorious about violence (Then again, look at how the US Government treated the last days of the Iraq war), but there is something about it that's intrinsic (or fascinating) to our nature. School yard biff. Urban violence. Wars. They're all a part of us, with or without video games, with or without shooters, and with or without adventure games. But maybe, if we play these games, and with the right guidence (perhaps from our parents, or our own sense responsibility) then maybe we can learn something.

In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill wrote "If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for all we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."

And I leave you with that...

[HillBilly]

This game though, it really pisses me off. I haven't even played it, but god, I'm sick of seeing ads for it on tv. This goes for a lot of games... *MORE TEXT HERE*

Oh c'mon, GTA can be fun! I've played SA a couple of times, and I didn't like it at all, but I really enjoyed GTA 1, 2 and Vice City. But I've never taken the game serious, because I find it too stupid. So I don't think you should be worried about kids turning into psychopathic gangsta's(Well, except those two brothers in London, who after playing GTA stole their father's gun and started shooting at passing cars, wounding a few and killing a 40 year old male nurse. They sued Rockstar afterwards, because after all, THEY'RE THE VICTIMS!).

Anyway, I don't have any consoles(Except my beloved SNES), so I usually play it together with a friend. We don't care about the missions. We just type in a couple o' cheat codes and cruise the town, playing undercover cops and such(In other words, only run over and shoot black people). We over-do these things so much, and we're having a great time. But, should people really have fun this way? Hell yes. Stops me from bustin' skulls in the real world.

(Oh, and for the record: the GTA violence is terrible and really unrealistic. If you're looking for some really good hand-to-hand combat, I suggest Manhunt, even if it gets a tad repitive.)

Well, that was my GTA rant, even if I'm not too fund of the game.

[Kinoko]

Okay, I'll state my real reason for hating the game this time. It's stupid. I WIN!

DG: I get your point, it's that same point everyone states over and over and over in these forums and I think we ALL feel the same. Games don't kill people, people kill people. None of us believe kids play games and then, as a result, act out violence. We all agree that if this does happen, it's that the kid was fucked up in the first place. Lesson: Watch your kids and don't let them get fucked up. Be a good parent, because a good parent makes a good kid and a good kid becomes a good adult who can make the right choices and judgements no matter what circumstances confront them.

MY point was really that I hate games like that (and any other similar media) because they just have the stupidest ... god, I can't even form it in words. You called it satire. Again, I haven't played it, but I just don't see that myself. Violence exists, we know that. Why does that warrant a game about it? Lava exists... where's the game about lava (holy shit, where IS the game about lava?!). I don't think it teaches anybody anything, I don't think it tells people anything they don't know already. It's just showing something we hear about in a thousand other ways, the only difference being that it lets you do it. I think one of my problems with it is that it IS so real. I love games like Dead or Alive. All those fighting styles exist in real life, but you just don't get sexy chicks fighting in bizarre tournaments while they do them. Jet Set Radio - I -HATE- skatey types and I can't stand grafitti, but that is one of the most awesome games I've ever played in my life. It's portrayed in a really fun, colourful, silly way. I'm not saying all games have to be silly, but GTA is about serious criminal acts. Thousands of games have been about that, but GTA is quite realistic, and that's... the only thing about it. That's the game. You're a criminal, doing these really, really bad things. Not fun bad, just bad. you might find it fun, I guess, but it doesn't really say "Fun". Just "Be bad". It annoys me. On top of that, it's really shitty. This is what really annoys me I think, that on top of being a game whose pulling point is that it's about being a really shitty person, the graphics are like 7 years ago.  Personally, I don't think it has any kind of "style" at all. It's UGLY.

God, that's it!!! The whole game is UGLY! I can't believe anyone would want to play such an ugly game. I hate ugly games!

Honestly, that's my biggest problem with it. The sheer grit of it all. Grit is one of those words I'd like to see banned for a decade or so, just like 'extreme' and the letter X capitalised. We need to get these things out of our vocabulary for awhile, until the human race learns to use them responsibly.

[scotch]

GTA isn't "a game about violence" any more than the other games that contain violence, which is most of them.  GTA is just amazingly fun, one of the funnest game series ever, the combat and gore is actually one of the worst executed parts of the games (driving is probably best)... I think you probably should play some GTA before forming an opinion on it, the adverts tell you nothing.  (the first two games are freeware now).  GTA has a lot of style, especially the later ones, and gta2 I think.
Manhunt on the other side is largely about watching different kinds of execution animations while a creepy director eggs you on, it's done in a much more realistic style... there is some okayish stealth/action gameplay but it was mostly noticed for the gore.  I quit playing, the (iirc, unskippable) gore animations annoyed me from the start... should it be banned? no, but I wouldn't want kids playing that game particularly.
I think the original topic was about adventures coming back because people will see them as a more educational and child friendly game genre.  God I hope not, I think they can come back because they are good, and some less safe and chld friendly adventures might be nice.  Games will diversify as more different kinds of people start playing them, and I think story based games will appeal to a lot of them.  Even the GTA series has headed more toward a story based format from mostly arcade style beginnings, which doesn't particularly suit it imo, but you see it in FPS and other genres too.  Unfortunately I can only see purist adventures remaining a niche market... I really hope that doesn't mean all kids games.