Comic Genesis Forums

Killbert-Robby wrote:Also, about the massacre, they were going in with a crossbow? And they found a plastic bottle and assumed they were going to use it as a silencer? Forgetting the kids probably didnt own subsonic rounds, a bottle doesn't work well, and lasts for, well, one shot. Anyone who plans to kill a horde of people with a crossbow is just ill prepared. Back in my day kids used shotguns and explosives, and they got the job done. I'm not glorifying school shootings here. If anything, I'm saying that these kids saw the news and thought "Ooooh school shooting, look, we can do better, and get more famous!", because ANYONE who plays videogames wouldnt have used that kit-out...

You see, the funny thing about that was that a month or two ago, our conservative minister of the interior wanted to lower gun ownership age back to 18 from 21, which it had been raised to in the political aftermath of the Erfurt school shooting a few years back. Had that gone through, they might have had more efficient weapons.

KWill wrote:

Killbert-Robby wrote:Also, about the massacre, they were going in with a crossbow? And they found a plastic bottle and assumed they were going to use it as a silencer? Forgetting the kids probably didnt own subsonic rounds, a bottle doesn't work well, and lasts for, well, one shot. Anyone who plans to kill a horde of people with a crossbow is just ill prepared. Back in my day kids used shotguns and explosives, and they got the job done. I'm not glorifying school shootings here. If anything, I'm saying that these kids saw the news and thought "Ooooh school shooting, look, we can do better, and get more famous!", because ANYONE who plays videogames wouldnt have used that kit-out...

You see, the funny thing about that was that a month or two ago, our conservative minister of the interior wanted to lower gun ownership age back to 18 from 21, which it had been raised to in the political aftermath of the Erfurt school shooting a few years back. Had that gone through, they might have had more efficient weapons.

Not really. People seem to forget, you can make guns illegal, but if someone wants one, you won't stop em. There's a thriving black market, and if you knew how easy it is to get your hands on an illegal weapon, you'd probably be scared shitless.. One of those guns looks like an SMG, and I doubt its a civilian version, since average Joe owns a rifle or a pistol. Which would mean its an automatic weapon. Which means its classed as an assault weapon. Its probably the best piece of kit they have, and most definetely bought off the black market. Gun laws have VERY little effect on planned murders. Sure on a spur of the moment or accidental killings, gun laws could shift the margin, but if somebody's PLANNING something, the laws mean pretty much nothing, except that instead of maybe that the guy's forced to buy an illegal gun making him harder to trace later on.

Besides, the kids were 17, which is still underage, so they would have owned illegal weapons either way. Again, gun laws dont really apply to this scenario.

Killbert-Robby wrote:Not really. People seem to forget, you can make guns illegal, but if someone wants one, you won't stop em. There's a thriving black market, and if you knew how easy it is to get your hands on an illegal weapon, you'd probably be scared shitless.. One of those guns looks like an SMG, and I doubt its a civilian version, since average Joe owns a rifle or a pistol. Which would mean its an automatic weapon. Which means its classed as an assault weapon. Its probably the best piece of kit they have, and most definetely bought off the black market. Gun laws have VERY little effect on planned murders.

I have no idea where to ask for a gun, and I doubt these two kids did either. Sure, there probably is an illegal market, but the less guns get sold legally, the less guns there are to sell illegally. The kids were either too broke to get some illegal firearms or didn't know how to get them. But notice how they didn't have any? They wanted to "kill and hurt" as the 18-year-old said and the younger was apparently inspired by the Columbine massacre, so I doubt they had any qualms about using assault weapons.

But short of asking the surviving 18-year old, we won't know whether they would have gotten guns if they had the means or knew how to.

Killbert-Robby wrote:Thats the thing : In its time. But now-a-days nobody brings it up. I just thought that its interesting that if you're a few years old you're exempt from the violence argument.

Well, of course, and there's an extremely good reason for this. Hardly anyone ever buys or sells the first two Fallout games anymore save for buy/sell/trade places. No one is going to complain about a game that's already hard enough to get a hold of without them making it harder.

But GTA - all of the GTAs - are readily available in any Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or what have you without even the slightest searching required. You don't even have to worry about whether it will be a used copy or not. You go down to your local electronics boutique, snap up a fresh new disk of the game, and BAM! VIOLENCE!

Just watch, man. If Fallout 3 is as violent or more violent than its predecessors when it comes out next year, the rest of the series will undoubtedly come back under the MAE microscope along with it. And even if they don't, I highly doubt that you'll be able to find a copy of Fallout that has kids in it unless you live in or import from the US or use the hack patch.

GTA indeed is a game that affects you in a weird way. After playing it, I really wanted to step to some guy entering the car, push him on the side and drive away with his car. I mean, that's maybe only affect someone who is potentially violent himself... but on second thought it's not a game that should be accessible to just anyone. There have been more violent games, but GTA involves you in a more realistic way. With games like so oftenly accused Mortal Combat, with all the violence, you're still controlling the puppet you're fairly detached from. With games like GTA, you're one step away from being in the game.
Not that I think that it happened often. Most of times, games are attacked simply because they're easy targets. Blame Canada and stuff.

Violent movies can push kids one inch toward violence (kids are specially very often imitating things they saw on tv and all) but I think that artist's freedom should never be in question.
To me it's all a question of pros and cons. just about everything from glamourized violence to Beatles songs can affect someone in a bad way. But if something was banned would that bring more good or bad? I think that censorship of violence in cinemas (and, related, in games) would perhaps be beneficial regarding a small percent of people who'd draw bad influences from them, but it would also make enormous damage for matters of artistic integrity and for the large percent of people whom this violence affects in positive, cathartic way.
On the other hand, rising the age limit for owning a gun will not solve all problems with violent kids and school shootouts and stuff. But it might do a little benefit, discouraging people and making guns just a bit harder to obtain. On the other side, I can't see any counterarguement for this, any way that such decision would do someone damage.

Actually Jim, I was thinking the same thing : Man, Fallout 3 is going to be INSANE if its anything like 2...

I'm just hoping you still get to become a porn star.

Beware.... Fallout 3 is being developed by Bethesda. If their Elder Scrolls games are any indication, they'll thoroughly butcher the Fallout franchise by taking out what everything likes for a more action-oriented play.

Although I hear the graphics are going to be nice.

It's like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion all over again.

But do you get to be a porn star!

Let's focus on what's important here.

But what if you already are a pornstar?

Then you wouldn't be wasting your time playing a vidgame.

The man has a point.

Personally I think thats an unfair generalization.

Black Sparrow wrote:The man has a point.

Him or me? =S

KWill wrote:

Black Sparrow wrote:The man has a point.

Him or me? =S

...I don't know anymore.

it really depends on how far you get drawn into fantasy, for people that delve to far into it it can even become a release of agression as opposed to a stimulant

Thats not exactly fair to bethesda. Oblivion is a flawed game, but its still a great one. It was never intended to be a game like fallout.

The stuff we have heard about fallout 3 sounds like they are making a worthy follow up, I understand people are going to be upset by the realtime combat, but Fallout to me was all about the feel and the atmosphere and the options available to me in a given situation, that all looks set to remain.

Regarding the content, They already admit that the current situation has forced them to make some concessions, chances are you wont be able to butcher children. It's unclear whether drugs will make the cut (as a usable item, as part of the story no problem).

The violence is hugely graphic, from some of the previews. Supermutant head go PLOOP.

With regards to sex? Fallout was never graphic, and given mass effects example i dont see why you cant get away with including it in the setting.

I guess putting in drugs shouldnt be too much of a push. Postal 2 had crack, and even Deus Ex had drugs that would just really fuck everything up for you (Made a handy scope if you didnt have one since it zoomed in real far ) And sex, hmm... I'm trying to think of a recent mainstream title that would let you have it... Ah well Fallout 3 will raise some bars.

Mass Effect, The Witcher, The Sims

mcDuffies wrote:GTA indeed is a game that affects you in a weird way. After playing it, I really wanted to step to some guy entering the car, push him on the side and drive away with his car.

Yes. Yes exactly. Exactly this. GTA is a cool game, but it spoke to me in a way most violent games never really do.