WWE star wants "more violence" in games Comments by Johnny Minkley
Randy Orton piledrives industry's critics.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-33 of 33 in total
Poster
|
gooners2006
08/08/08 @ 09:19
0
Clarkson is a Legend, this Orton is payed shit loads to walk around acting like a twat in lycra....i can see the similarities lol
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 08/08/08 @ 10:21
|
|
Der_tolle_Emil
08/08/08 @ 09:20
0
Even if GTA IV looks cartoonish next to Goodfellas - I agree with him - I don't see any reason why this should be a good argument to get more violence in games. There are more than enough mature titles to play.
|
|
Kirly_Wombat
08/08/08 @ 10:21
0
More violence gets my vote, but then Im not one of those idiots who cant tell games from reality.
|
|
The Bodybuilder
08/08/08 @ 10:22
0
Wow, someone with publicity (whether good or bad, it's still publicity) supports gaming freedom and defends games, yet he still gets stick with gamers.
Heck, the guy sounds like an actual gamer, not just a mainstreamer. I thought he would get some respect here, but I guess not. I don't care for wrestling (anymore), but I really do think gamers are pure dicks. Attack games? Gamers attack the person. Defend games? Gamers still attack the person. We're all a bunch of dicks. |
|
Hugh.G.Rection
09/08/08 @ 08:07
0
I enjoyed the irony in " doesn't use the wii steering wheel because its just a gimmick"
I agree with 'The Giant Douche' in some respects, but its this appealling to the lowest common denominator of more violence = better that is getting the industry nowhere. Conan had more violence than GOW, but that was just appalling in comparison. We need more articulate, mature adult content to coincide with more realistically animated violence if the world and in particular ratings bodies are to take these fiascos seriously. Living in the wonderful world of oz is especially irritating when nearly every game gets either banned or severely edited to conform to our strict MA15+ guidelines. Nothing is going to change unless the context of the violence in the games is clearly understood by the OFLC and BBFC (and the others). Otherwise the classification bureaus will always fall back on the same old ' but you can control this axe wielding maniac' argument. I forgot what I'm getting at, I'm just peeved that Fallout 3 has been banned over here unless it is edited is all. |
|
DutchDemons
09/08/08 @ 16:13
0
@Hugh
Allthough you make a valid point, im all for more games with appalling violence..without good reasons etcetera. Why? Because gaming needs to break out of these shackles that hold it down...where all we get is cartoon like violence. To protect the effing kids. Kids shouldn't play these mature games. Make more games like manhunt (ftfw!) and make the world see, that adults play games too...and it can as violent as the roughest movies. Even now, when my non-gaming friends come over and se my chainsaw someone in Gears...there like ' oh my god, you can cut someone in half??'....1 hour later we're watching saw and see someone's had smashed in by 2 ice blocks. nobody blinked. I'm sure that when the market gets flooded with violent games, the whining would stop. And whether you like Orton or not...finally a well known guy stands up for us...and yet some gamers trash him...Wouldn't now be a good moment to let go and just agree with the man? ffs
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/08/08 @ 17:17
|
|
DutchDemons
09/08/08 @ 16:14
0
Sorry..double post due to server error.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/08/08 @ 17:16
|
|
YourMessageHere
10/08/08 @ 22:21
0
In theory it's good that a well known person has decided to declare his support for games. However there are a few problems in practice.
First, how many people likely to be persuaded by a wrestler are likely to be enormous critics of gaming? This is just as likely to be seen as ammunition by the anti-games lot: "this man who encourages violent behaviour in youngsters for a living says he wants more violence in games...so irresponsible..." and so on. To the average person who's on the fence, a violent guy saying more violence in games is not likely to sway them towards liking it. He's preaching to the converted. Second, the fact he's concentrating on money rather than intrinsic merit, be that artistic, educational, functioning well as a pure game, or having entertainment value, does little to counter those who claim violent games are cynical attempts to exploit money from people with no regard for consequences. Thirdly, simply adding violence in games is just as likely to make them better and more respected by the general public as putting more violence in films is, and I think most people can agree that adding violence to a film generally does not improve its public image or critical acclaim. But most of all, it's hardly as if anything he's saying is particularly persuasive. He doesn't even present a properly coherent argument, just an "I want violence in games, 'cos it's in films and that's OK". Unless the level-headed, reasoned rationale never made it to the news story. But I somehow doubt that - I don't expect coherence from wrestlers. |
|
0
Lol. Awesome article.
A 'wrestler' isn't a very credible defender of videogames, though*. But who cares? The man knows what he wants. Give him more hacked limbs and severed heads. (*A senator who fought in WW2, Vietnam, survived the Rwandan genocide and is now the head of the Red Cross - now that would be the sort of advocate videogames need.) To be honest however, games just need time to be widely accepted as just another medium for entertainment, art and information... no more or less harmful or influential than television or books. This is inevitable, I think - so the games medium doesn't really need defending at all. It just needs Time. |
Comments: 1-33 of 33 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
