@BaconBuTTy said:
@Branthog Please don't think that the author's nationality is the reason for his ignorance in this article. I am from the UK, and I have my opinions on gun control, but this article is beyond stupid - And I disagree with him COMPLETELY. This is a stupid link to make and is nothing like candy cigarettes whcih was truely exploitative. Seriously, the author being in the UK has nothing to do with this. It is just straight up, plain ol' ignorance.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that people in the UK are ignorant of just how little guns have to do with life in the US (outside of entertainment), but only that there are some in the UK who have expressed over the years what seems to be a great misunderstanding (as would be reasonable when most of what people may have to base it on is news coverage and entertainment material). I tried to make a generous assumption that the author was one such person.
@posh said:
@Branthog said:
Read that earlier. It's ridiculous logic to back a sensationalist grab for hits by exploiting an already hyperbolic cable-news-fueled non-issue, right now.
Using the same logic, racing games are even worse. Racing games use licensed brands at least as often as games with guns do. Deals are struck wherein the use and depiction of said vehicles are controlled. Some franchises are able to push this, but more often than not, the brands do not want their vehicles to be capable of taking damage. This chummy promotion of automobiles, to adults and children alike, is grotesque. Automobiles almost exclusively require petroleum, which direction or indirectly funds terrorism and terrorist countries based on where most of that fuel is currently derived.
alright, bit of a stretch perhaps to say "driving funds terrorism" and that advertising cars is on par with advertising weapons designed to kill
It also negates the point that boys never needed a video game to be infatuated with guns and knowing everything about them by checking out books and magazines at the library.
you know full well that learning about guns by going to the library and reading up on them would require a previous knowledge and interest of guns to look them up in the first place. call of duty is a huge game that everybody at school plays, learning about guns in call of duty is a byproduct of having fun with friends. gun books aren't heavily marketed
It also, you know, negates the whole point that the same age group such games are marketed to is also the age group legally allowed to own guns in the states, so I don't even see what valid issue there is here at all.
I personally don't think video game developers should turn a blind eye to the fact that their games are going to be played by people of all ages, though I can understand your point here and my point of view is probably a little idealistic. although it is very easy for a 13 year old to be able to play call of duty
Oh, and there's also a significant difference between the results of marketing smokes versus firearms. One requires significantly more effort to acquire and get involved with. The other is sold in vending machines and at the corner store and every gas station.
the article isn't making a direct comparison between smoking and gun ownership, it's making a comparison between their marketing schemes. not the results. it explicitly says that they haven't quantified the effects of the gun marketing, just people involved in it believe there's positive correlation between gun sales and gun marketing in video games
Anyway, it's a lot of sensationalist hypocritical bullshit. This is a Fox News level of complaint, wherein they typically ignore important issues like the age rating of such games and the fact that many of these other weapons in games (for example, BF3) are either not something you can acquire outside of the military or come with a lot of regulations. They may as well be making an issue out of the fact that tanks have real names, because that's probably going to lead every eighteen year old to rush out and acquire an Abrams tank.
it's not the model of gun that they're buying that matters, it's the fact they're buying these guns at all, based off a game where the objective is to kill people
The only explanation for making this a big deal, that I can see, is that the author is from the UK. So . . . whatever. I guess maybe this is an interesting topic of discussion overseas, where they already tend to have rather inaccurate perception of gun-laws and ownership in the US (I've actually had friends from Europe visit the states before and make a point of saying they expected to see guns everywhere and were surprised that most people not only didn't walk around waving guns around but didn't even own them).
seriously? I don't think I know anybody who thinks that way about the US at all. our perception of the US comes from the high crime figures and frequent news stories about gun sprees
Sorry, this got long.
It's not a bit of a stretch to say that oil funds terrorism. It has been stated by governments repeatedly and cited as an example of why we need to get off of oil (or onto our own national supply). Saudi Arabia is directly linked to supporting terrorism and derives massive wealth from oil purchases. Making this comparison to advertising weapons "designed to kill" is almost exactly the same. Both are talking about advertising things that have some violent detrimental result (if you carry the theoretical thread far enough).
Also, kids loved drawing guns and pretending to play with pretend guns and reading about them long before Call of Duty existed. We spent endless hours doing so as little boys in the early 80s and my uncle and little boys of his time did so in the 50s. That's what boys do. They play war and read about real ranks and real war and real guns. That's what makes this whole article the silliest. It negates the entire fact that this interest from boys in guns (with specific brands) predates all of video games. It's like when news journalists start freaking out a couple times a year about this scary new dangerous game that children have invented, where you bend over and gasp a whole bunch until you pass out. Oh noes! Except . . . . they did that in the 80s, too. And before that. This is just a bunch cable-news quality sensationalism that should be beyond "game journalists", who are typically the ones fighting this sort of ridiculous garbage when the ignorant news media outside of gaming spews it.
Also, there may be a great number of stories about gun sprees, but there are not a lot of gun sprees. Not for one second in my life have I ever had any fear related to a gun or being shot by one and to have a fear of being involved specifically in a spree killing would require discarding all statistical reality and buying into the sensational fears pumped into your brain by commercial news. Further, nobody is actually "buying all these guns, based off a game where the objective is to kill people". You have to be an adult to buy a weapon. And many of the weapons in these games are not even for sale to citizens. You are really making a lot of extreme leaps here. For any of this to matter, we have to first accept that mass killing sprees are the result of advertising, video games, or any other form of entertainment. That's an enormous gap to traverse before we even start to worry about the issue of "well, an underage person could play a video game that does have guns that have real brands and names and then they could become fascinated by them and want to go buy one, then they could wait five years until they reach legal age and then they could apply for a gun permit and go buy one of the available legal firearms and then wait a couple weeks for the background check and then they could use that weapon to go kill a dozen people in a school, because of an advertising deal in a video game.
I'm not trying to belittle your point, here. It's just that for any of this to really be worth caring about, we have to string such a large number of improbabilities together.
Personally, I'm more concerned with the idea of my favorite video game that I pay $65 for is trying to sell me Coke and Juicy Fruit with blatant and unbridled advertising. At least with guns and cars, it's applicable to the situation and is something people demand from their games. Nobody is going around saying "damn it, this game has fake soda brand names in it!" -- but they do care whether the cars and guns in their games are the "real thing". And that's not because the game is shaping them to care about it. It's because they already cared about it before that and want it to be recognized in their game. It's the complete opposite of what the article seems to suggest.
. . . anyway, what is the ultimate point of all of this? Are you suggesting they shouldn't be able to strike these deals, because it might encourage children to be interested in owning a gun someday? Why is that a problem? Or they shouldn't be allowed to do this, because in some alternate reality, one mentally deranged person on medication out of every fifty million or so might decide to break into the gun closet or whatever that their crazy end-of-worlder parent left poorly protected and then go out and shoot some people -- all because the guns in their favorite game were branded instead of using made-up names? And let's allow all these crazy strings and implications that make that piece of marketing ultimately culpable for all of that. So what? Ultimately, people are responsible for themselves. Freaky shit happens that is beyond people's control and they could get shot (but almost certainly not) or they could even be run over in an outdoor mall by a crazy old lady mistaking the gas for the break. But we have the right of free speech and expression. So . . . unless we're going to abridge this right. Unless we're going to render it meaningless and determine that "if it can save just one life... yadda yadda yadda" we need to take action . . . then were do we stop? No guns at all, in games? er -- all entertainment media, I mean? No knives, branded or otherwise? No cars? Cars kill a lot of people, after all. How about booze and smokes in media?
I don't have any particular fascination with guns. Don't own one. Don't use one. Don't care to. But I find it absolutely bizarre that everyone keeps going around in this first amendment thing over guns. That is just . . . astonishing. I support the right to own guns, but at least taking issue with gun ownership because guns are actually used to kill people (as well as defend them and other things) has a certain consistency. Suggesting that content in games or movies or other media should be censored (voluntarily or otherwise) because of all these other strings that theoretically eventually result in someone using a gun is . . . that doesn't seem consistent to me. And if that isn't the point of all this, then I don't know why the article exists and everyone keeps talking about this.
Log in to comment