IMPORTANT UPDATE TO MORTAL KOMBAT BANNING

[griffin]

I'm very interested to see what is so bad they cant rate it, I mean there is some pretty messed up stuff in movies, take the Saw series for example its just a constant over the top blood and guts fest. Something like that is fine to be stocked in every video shop in Australia, yet the latest MK game is too much? We live in such a strange world.

There may be pleasure in watching destruction and harm in a movie, but you always remain a powerless observer, a bystander. You don't actively chose the course of action that leads to the violence or destruction as part of the process of enjoying the game. That's the difference between movies and games of similar graphic violence - a game lets you choose to act out the level of violence you enjoy. As the higher functions of the brain are used to decide these processive actions on a more consistent basis, especially before a brain is fully developed at the age of 25, it makes it more habit forming... something that wasn't a problem when graphics used to be so unrealistic that a more developed brain is able to dismiss it easily as fantasy.

We seem to be getting to the point where virtual reality is looking more like reality... which begs the question - how is watching realistic violence on a game and enjoying it, any different to watching real violence and enjoying it? If you have a game that gets you excited about sniper killing an image that now looks like a real human, how is that different to a serial killer getting excited about actually killing a real human?

And at the accelerated rate of realism in games, how far off are we from a gaming format similar to the movie The Matrix, which would have players enter a realistic world to do their killing and destruction (for pleasure), without anything obvious about it being fake? With 3D gaming being the next big thing, is life-like virtual-reality gaming really that far off or far fetched? Does a line need to be drawn somewhere before we get that far, to restrict 'life-like' graphics to non-violent games?

I think perhaps that the latter is what is happening here, with a point of realism approaching (and in some instances, reached), government agencies are stepping in to suggest setting up the boundaries society needs on things it wants (like with drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, etc). As a gaming culture, we may just be too addicted to a finding and playing a 'bigger high' - the next, more intense game that outdoes the last one at stimulating our senses.

For example, playing out the latest Call of Duty, I was put off on a couple of things, most particularly the torture chapter of the game. Why have this as something the player has to do for fun, instead of just being played out as a scene between chapters (or not having it at all)? It wasn't necessary for the plot of the game. Who gets pleasure (the point of a game) from sticking glass into a person's mouth and then punching them in the jaw to make their mouth bleed? What sort of person would choose without hesitation to do that, or why force a player to do that to proceed to the next chapter?
Games are meant to stimulate the pleasure centre of the brain, so why is torturing someone in such a cruel fashion considered 'fun'? I don't mind shooting-type games for improving reflexes, and maybe even roleplaying certain eras of history (like in CoD), but do people really enjoy torturing or mutilating others for them to want it in increasingly life-like games that are supposed to be 'fun'?

I know I have high standards when it comes to things kids (with developing brains) can be exposed to, but why are people enjoying games that allows them to choose to do these increasingly realistic violent things for 'fun'?

Maybe if we didn't have such a violent nature to our species, we wouldn't have a high demand for increasingly violent games, and therefore wouldn't have games so violent that they are refused classification.
(I blame Dinobot and Cheetor for educating our ancestors on how to be violent... )

[1AZRAEL1]

For example, playing out the latest Call of Duty, I was put off on a couple of things, most particularly the torture chapter of the game. Why have this as something the player has to do for fun, instead of just being played out as a scene between chapters (or not having it at all)? It wasn't necessary for the plot of the game. Who gets pleasure (the point of a game) from sticking glass into a person's mouth and then punching them in the jaw to make their mouth bleed? What sort of person would choose without hesitation to do that, or why force a player to do that to proceed to the next chapter?
Games are meant to stimulate the pleasure centre of the brain, so why is torturing someone in such a cruel fashion considered 'fun'? I don't mind shooting-type games for improving reflexes, and maybe even roleplaying certain eras of history (like in CoD), but do people really enjoy torturing or mutilating others for them to want it in increasingly life-like games that are supposed to be 'fun'?

I'll agree with you there, that does, IMO, go too far. Having to do it to progress is bad. A cut scene, while still bad in itself, would be less bad than having to do it yourself. Having a choice to do it or not would have been better as well.

One thing that differentiates real life serial killers, and people who play games as serial killers, is that most normal gamers would know the difference, no matter how life-like the game is. If there was a virtual reality game that was so life-like that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, I wouldn't play it, and then go out and do it in real life, that's just silly. There may be some moron that does it, but the majority of people would know that it is just a game.

To quote a legend "When you look at how many people who listen to you music and kill themselves, and compare it to all those who don't kill themselves, that's pretty good odds"

Things that someone may enjoy (not on a sadistic level) should not be removed from the majority because of some idiot in a small minority who takes it the wrong way and does something stupid, like killing people or themselves.

JMO.

[Hursticon]

Personally, I see the argument that games have you actively participating, where as movies/video you don't actively participate as a bit of a weak one.

The reason being is sure, on a video game you can actively choose to do something violent which essentially puts one in the first degree, But I put it to you that watching a movie/video is equally as bad because whilst you may not be able to interact with the event, you're still choosing to watch it and that makes you an accessory to the fact or at the very least a witness that has done anything to stop it.

I don't think people can say 'It's ok because it's a movie/video so therefore I'm less likely to be affected' because if you object to violence and don't hit the stop button or just walk away from it - Then you've actively chosen to become a participant and hence are interacting with it, therefore you're going to be affected.

The whole purpose of a game is to allow people to do things that they can't do in reality and the few people who do try to enact it in reality obviously have underlying mental issues because, as 1AZRAEL1 points out, 95%+ of people who play games know the difference between right and wrong, reality and virtual.
This is exactly the same with movies/video or have parents just suddenly given up on teaching their children 'it's only a movie, it's just make-believe/pretend' ?

If a person can't discern right from wrong, reality from virtual - Then they shouldn't be participating in either games or movies/video and should seek clinical help.

[5FDP]

Two things I would like to point out with the MK game is -

One of the main reasons why the game was RC was due to the graphic nature of the 'Fatality' moves however WB put on the table that to execute these move, it required a number of button presses which would activate a 'cut scene' lessening the level of interactivity by the player. The scene would then play itself out.

Secondly, unlike games such as Call of Duty, MK is played out in a fantasy world and not based on real-life events or possible scenarios.

Sure, it's a violent game... you'll get no argument from me on that. And I completely agree that games such as these should not be played or viewed by minors. The whole point of this is that there are adult gamers out there however the government refuses to recognise that fact.

[Hursticon]

Two things I would like to point out with the MK game is -

One of the main reasons why the game was RC was due to the graphic nature of the 'Fatality' moves however WB put on the table that to execute these move, it required a number of button presses which would activate a 'cut scene' lessening the level of interactivity by the player. The scene would then play itself out.

Hell, I'd argue dude that any game is just like a movie/video/cutscene as both a movie and a game are predetermined and have already been played out, you just have to hit the play button.
It just takes repeated play button presses to get to the end of a game where as a movie/video/cutscene only needs one, so which is worse really?

Secondly, unlike games such as Call of Duty, MK is played out in a fantasy world and not based on real-life events or possible scenarios.

Netherrealm isn't real?

Sure, it's a violent game... you'll get no argument from me on that. And I completely agree that games such as these should not be played or viewed by minors. The whole point of this is that there are adult gamers out there however the government refuses to recognise that fact.

I have quite against the grain views on violence with regards to kids, without going into detail - It's my personal opinion that blanketing kids until their 18 does way more harm than good but each to their own.
Parents have the right to raise their children however they'd like, so long as it's their kids they're trying to raise and not everyone elses.
(Not suggesting you, 5FDP, or anyone else here does this at all )

[gantz]

I would just like to 2nd Hursticon's remarks about movies and games.

To me, you CHOSE to play this game, knowing full well what was contained within and what you would be doing.

You CHOSE to rent/watch a film, again, knowing full well what will transpire in it.

It is not as if you were strolling the net, saw A Serbian Film, Ken Park, or August Underground Mordum's and thought 'hey this looks lovely, I'll watch it'

It's all about choice, something this countries leaders do believe we're incapable of....

[griffin]

Personally, I see the argument that games have you actively participating, where as movies/video you don't actively participate as a bit of a weak one.

The reason being is sure, on a video game you can actively choose to do something violent which essentially puts one in the first degree, But I put it to you that watching a movie/video is equally as bad because whilst you may not be able to interact with the event, you're still choosing to watch it and that makes you an accessory to the fact or at the very least a witness that has done anything to stop it.

I disagree, after you've consciously turned on the game/movie, a movie uses lower, subconscious brain functions (sit and watch), while a game uses higher brain functions (plan, process and execute). Watching a movie has the outcome pre-determined no matter what you consciously choose on the outset. In a game you have to choose to kill/injure, and how to do it.
Which is why it probably wouldn't be a good idea to have a developing brain instinctively planning, processing and executing violent tendencies, as opposed to just watching it happen (like on the news).
We keep having people with developed brains saying that most people can tell the difference between a game and reality, which may be true for most people, but my point was why people who know the difference choose to enact violent tendencies for fun. As well as suggesting that a developing brain (usually the key gaming demographic) and violent games that are getting closer and closer to real-life visually, maybe aren't a good combination.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

I think that school bully video there could well be associated with wrestling as well. Which is marketted very strongly to kids anyway.

Personally I support an r rating just so that parents will perhaps look at a game and make the judgement call on whether or not to buy it. I remember being in an EB shop when some kid was looking at Madworld for the wii. The kid wanted to give it a go and the parent thinking that as it was a wii game it was kid-friendly was about to buy it. Being a community minded person, I intiated conversation and managed to swing it around to the game and its contents. Mum just assumed that as it was on the wii, it was a kids game. Luckily she put it back although junior wasn't too happy with me. She thanked me afterwards.

Almost had the same situation with a kid convincing mum to get them GTA.

I've said this before and I will probably say it again. It comes down to the parents/buyer controlling it. At the current stage of technology, In my mind, the classification board should provide us with the correct information as to what a game contains, and let us decide whether or not to play it. they only have it half correct at the moment.

I assume that when the R-Rating gets passed, then we can go about playing MK. Or the MK that comes after this one, knowing how long they have been sitting on their hands so far...

In Western Australia, it is explicitly forbidden to posess or copy RC computer games. Sorry, guys, you’ve got the short straw.

Aaaw Nuts
*sniffs and cuddles up to his legally owned Megatron(s) gun form*

[griffin]

Yeah, school bullying and cyber-bullying of kids (which is very common these days) is a lot more complex psychologically, making it impossible to pin it to just one cause.
Just that when I saw that smaller kid emulating a fighting hop just before he was picked up and slammed, it suggested he was inspired by something like the sports fighting on TV or fighting games. It's just sad to see kids bullying others, and their parents and schools remain in denial until someone gets seriously injured or killed.

Back on topic though - I guess if people are determined to get their hands on this game, they will find a way. Formulating specific methods here could get you into trouble legally, so just be careful with how specific you get with your thoughts on the matter.

[5FDP]

Parents have the right to raise their children however they'd like, so long as it's their kids they're trying to raise and not everyone elses.

Completely agree with you on that point. Even though I would never expose my children to adult material, the government fails to realise that they are taking away our basic rights to be parents.

I think that school bully video there could well be associated with wrestling as well. Which is marketted very strongly to kids anyway.

I was waiting for this to mentioned at some point

That's as plausible as saying the Karate Kid learnt all of his moves from playing Mortal Kombat

Aaaw Nuts
*sniffs and cuddles up to his legally owned Megatron(s) gun form*

This only highlights the flaws and inconsistencies in our current system.

In the absence of an R rating for videogames, I would like to see an alternative to outright banning of games, one which takes into consideration the freedoms which should be afforded to adults.

Anyway, I didn't really want to turn this into a debate about the rating system as we already have a topic for that. My intention was to make others aware of the current situation that surrounds Mortal Kombat.