• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Tea Party zombies must die?

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
TEA PARTY ZOMBIES MUST DIE!

Apparently you kill zombies of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, and if you die you get a message saying there's no healthcare so you must die, or something to that stupid effect.

So, is this over-the-line? Where are those who blamed conservative talk-radio for Jared Loughner shooting Gabby Giffords or is this different? And if it's different, how?

For those that argue "this is a video game" how is this different from "that is just a radio-talk show"? If one is to be responsible to the alleged mental instability of it's consumers, shouldn't both be held to that same standard?
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
]For those that argue "this is a video game" how is this different from "that is just a radio-talk show"? If one is to be responsible to the alleged mental instability of it's consumers, shouldn't both be held to that same standard?
Your analogy has one flaw in that people play video games for fun or entertainment while people listen to the radio to be informed and hear the news. However, this thread has nothing to do with radio shows so I digress.

Is it over the line? Maybe. Then again, games like this have been around ever since the internet started. A ten second Google search gets plenty of games where you kill Obama. I played a bit of the one you linked to and it's a pretty lame shooter to be honest. It's also pretty clear that the focus of the game is more concerned on political satire than the violence itself with the whole zombie metaphor used as a vehicle of entertainment.

Being a gamer my whole life, these arguments are really starting to become tedious because people have been killing people way before video games (and even less now that violent games are out there, go figure right?) and giving them something like this is not going to increase hostility.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Your analogy has one flaw in that people play video games for fun or entertainment while people listen to the radio to be informed and hear the news. However, this thread has nothing to do with radio shows so I digress.

Is it over the line? Maybe. Then again, games like this have been around ever since the internet started. A ten second Google search gets plenty of games where you kill Obama. I played a bit of the one you linked to and it's a pretty lame shooter to be honest. It's also pretty clear that the focus of the game is more concerned on political satire than the violence itself with the whole zombie metaphor used as a vehicle of entertainment.

Being a gamer my whole life, these arguments are really starting to become tedious because people have been killing people way before video games (and even less now that violent games are out there, go figure right?) and giving them something like this is not going to increase hostility.
People don't listen to the radio for entertainment? Really?

They are tedious, I agree, as someone who has listened to the radio my whole life. People have been killing people long before the radio was invented, including political assassinations.

Let me be clear, I'm not drawing a causal connection between video game violence and violence. I'm pointing out the absurdity of the argument that one influences violence while the other does not.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
Yeah, a voice of authority talks of killing. Or a game has visuals of killing. Which is more influencial to incite ACTUAL killing? Probably even more to the point: won't that aforementioned authority be a proponent of banning games that have killings?
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Yeah, a voice of authority talks of killing. Or a game has visuals of killing. Which is more influencial to incite ACTUAL killing? Probably even more to the point: won't that aforementioned authority be a proponent of banning games that have killings?
The argument is: there are crazy people out there, so radio talk show hosts have a responsibility to tone down the rhetoric so as not to incite anyone. Aren't there gamers who are batshit crazy? Aren't there gamers who would like to incite violence? If the radio talk show host has a responsibility so as not to incite a crazy person, doesn't a game maker have that same responsibility?
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
People don't listen to the radio for entertainment? Really?
When did I say that?

Let me be clear, I'm not drawing a causal connection between video game violence and violence. I'm pointing out the absurdity of the argument that one influences violence while the other does not.
The only thing is the amount of influence is quite varying. People play video games never for educational purposes, they aren't trying to learn things or better themselves in any way. They just want to kill time or kick back with friends. People listen to the radio, sometimes to be entertained, but also to get news with that entertainment as well. Seeing as I have a pretty good idea what you are referencing exactly, I think what you have to see is that people listen to the radio expecting to get something out of it, too.

Therein lies the important difference between the two.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
The argument is: there are crazy people out there, so radio talk show hosts have a responsibility to tone down the rhetoric so as not to incite anyone. Aren't there gamers who are batshit crazy? Aren't there gamers who would like to incite violence? If the radio talk show host has a responsibility so as not to incite a crazy person, doesn't a game maker have that same responsibility?

Game makers have ONE responsibility. Revenues. Talk shows have one responsibility. Ratings. Government officials/authorities are OUR servants, paid by us, and their only responsibility: the welfare of the people.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Game makers have ONE responsibility. Revenues. Talk shows have one responsibility. Ratings. Government officials/authorities are OUR servants, paid by us, and their only responsibility: the welfare of the people.
See but that's not right though. Game developers are still responsible for the content they produce, much like movie studios and publishers. Both have to make money, what we're talking about is influence, shel.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
The only thing is the amount of influence is quite varying. People play video games never for educational purposes, they aren't trying to learn things or better themselves in any way. They just want to kill time or kick back with friends. People listen to the radio, sometimes to be entertained, but also to get news with that entertainment as well. Seeing as I have a pretty good idea what you are referencing exactly, I think what you have to see is that people listen to the radio expecting to get something out of it, too.

Therein lies the important difference between the two.
You're grouping all gamers together. Some gamers are crazy, just like every other segment of the population. It's not like ALL gamers play for the same reasons and have the same mental stability. So if some gamers are crazy, don't game makers have a responsibility so as not to incite violence?
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
What CAN influence and what actually DOES influence is exactly the fine line that that talk shows and game makers are looking for all the time. Really it's about what has the POWER to influence and that is what is being disputed. Many think it's talk shows or many might think it's violent games. Yet there are just as many that think neither is influential. But when it comes to actual officials....I'm sorry... they can't take those kind of liberties. The line is very clear.
 
Top