"Civilization III is a Role Playing Game"

[The Mad Monk]

That's all well and good, but, speaking as a Christian, I do find all the snickering in this thread...annoying.

[ottok]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I think the issue here is to have tact when arguing about such a touchy subject. Religious people have every right to question my non-religious views, I am so confident of my own beliefs that I believe I can out-argue them if they try to convince me otherwise (and try they have!). Confidence is really important. You must be sure of what you believe in. People who are insecure with their beliefs are usually the ones who stop an argument saying they are being disrespected or something like that, a defensive posture.

YOU LIE! ANY ONE LIE IN USA!

[ottok]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
Personally, I think people believe in god(s) to get spiritual confort, and know that when they`ll be dead, there`ll be a nice heaven to receive them, and not an simple void of nothingness and oblivion. I get myself really conforted believing that`s the truth, even though I know it can be just a Freudian negation of death.

When a discussion comes to some topics, it becomes really a matter of personal choice and peace of consciousness. If there`s people who choose to be mentally restricted by an ancient book and its sometimes questionable laws and examples, then it is only my obligation to respect and understand that choice, even if I don`t agree with it. The only thing I don`t like about some fanatics is how they try to make me believe in their faiths and body of wisdom. But that`s a rare event.

Final Law for me is: I believe in what I want, you believe in what you want. Let`s just help each other and be nice, and peace should follow.

It`s just a pity mr. Bush don`t seem to understand some issues very well...

I think is know wery well that one:
not say that truth that us is against islman,tell LIE that us try stop terrorism!

But they do,which looks first,not second!

If they want STOP terrorism KILL Ariel Sharon IS more helping at that than KILL Saddam Hussein!!
Thin that!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
That's all well and good, but, speaking as a Christian, I do find all the snickering in this thread...annoying.

Yes, well, one thing is "intelligent" debate and another quite different is snichering and trash-talking. But it says a lot about the person who does one or the other...

[Gunnar Thor]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
That's all well and good, but, speaking as a Christian, I do find all the snickering in this thread...annoying.

Then don't read it.

@Mad bomber - Yeah, that was probably it. It's been a while since I took that history class.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Master Zen

Yes, well, one thing is "intelligent" debate and another quite different is snichering and trash-talking. But it says a lot about the person who does one or the other...

Yes, but often I find there is a fine line between debate and heated arguments, esp. when talking religion or politics or anything else people feel passionate about.

And then there's answering telemarketers phone calls, but that's a whole other topic.

[Trifna]

I would just like to mention that not all Christians are pushing that far some ideas.

/me raises his hand

Personally, I believe in evolutionism and seriously do not think in that magical belief that "music suddenly transforms man into a devil". Maybe anger and such things are bad, but music doesn't mean same thing for everyone. Same for video games.

I guess the reviewer' opinions are understandable if you put yourself on the side of the guy that believes that everything REPRESENTING bad stuff is bad in itself and brings anyone playing with it to be a bad person...

[pedrojedi]

I think the issue here is to have tact when arguing about such a touchy subject. Religious people have every right to question my non-religious views, I am so confident of my own beliefs that I believe I can out-argue them if they try to convince me otherwise (and try they have!). Confidence is really important. You must be sure of what you believe in. People who are insecure with their beliefs are usually the ones who stop an argument saying they are being disrespected or something like that, a defensive posture.

Well, usually I'm not worried about out-arguing anyone with different beliefs than mine. I really please myself at achieving spiritual peace, even if it comes through meditation and questioning my own "beliefs" and "truths". The only confidence I need is my own pride of questining myself and setting my horizon a little further. Confidence of never knowing.

A defensive posture does not necessarily comes from people who don't believe on their arguments. Sometimes someone just do not like having her beliefs called "false", "heretic", "wrong" or "blind", which is a very common attittude that some fanaticly religious people take. This "rigidness" of thinking is more like a uncertainty of belief to me than defensive posture. Denial can come through many ways, including "blind faith" or "rigid thinking". Denial of different visions that may frighten the person, because they are all new and unknown. They are an addult manifestation of the childish fear of the dark.

I'm getting too Freudian. D*mn the DSM!

[star mouse]

90-100% (A) These games are free of virtually all violence, language, sexual, and occult content or material. They also contain Biblical material and/or educational material. Example: Civilization III

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Wait a minute:
Did I miss something? Where is the "biblical material" in Civ3?

It probably passes because of the "educational material" in the game. For example, there is an description of the history of each civilisation in the game.

As for the objection that the game preaches evolution by setting the age of the world at 3 to 5 billion years old, this is easy to overcome. In the "Text" directory, find the file "labels.txt", and use a text editor to change these lines (lines 371 to 374):

AGE
3 Billion
4 Billion
5 Billion

to this:

TERRAIN
Mountainous
Hilly
Flat

I tried it and it works fine.

While I don't agree with the "evolutionary" claims about the age of the earth, I provide the above as an example of the way you can alter the text files in the game for creative effect. You could also change "Archipelago" to "Snaky Lands" on line 362 if you think "Snaky Lands" is a better description of what the terrain generator produces.

[Albert B]

This thread has been very interesting and entertaining as well as quite disturbing at times. The are many good posts expressing opinions both clearly and with good support (both ones I agree with and don't). There is also some very humorous stuff here.

However, the amount of ignorance on some posters part amazes me. Before anyone thinks this is a flame please be sure you know the that I'm speaking to you and that you know what ignorance means. To help you out, ignorance is lack of knowledge or education. Being ignoranct is correctable and nothing to be offended by. One of my strongest beliefs I have is that society's biggest issue today is a lack of education. If I called you stupid, that would be another story . Anyway, back to the point...

First, I will tell you that I am a relatively new Christian and I'm not fully versed in all things biblical. Not long ago, I was one to argue rather passionately against most all organized religions. I felt that while the bible offered many good ideas on how to lead a positive life, organized religion was just away for a few people to get rich while the masses of weak minded individuals got the feel good medicine they needed. I still believe that some evangilists are just looking to take advantage of weak minded individuals and that some people turn to religion for the wrong reasons. However, most churches and organizations are grounded is solid Christian beliefs looking to continue the work of Jesus Christ. I am not a "fundamentalist" or extreme right wing activist by any means. I am a firm believer in evolution and have it and several other beliefs that don't mesh well with traditional Christian prinipless that I am still struggling to understand and explain.

Now, looking through these posts there were several complaints about Christians that I found to be both disturbing and humorous due to the ignorant nature of the statements. For one, the complaint that "those darn religious folk are trying to make me believe like they do". To let you know, that's their JOB! One of the primary responsibilities of most modern religions is to "spread the word". For example, it is not the job of Christians to force you to believe but it is their responsibility to tell you what you need to do to be saved. Most good Christians will not badger you to believe but will try to find subtle ways to introduce you to Christ.

Another interesting line of posts were the "biblical fiction" comments. You may not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and maybe you believe that the miracles performed by him are legends, tricks or exagerated stories. However, the body of work that is the New Testament, are true stories. The first 4 books tell the story of Jesus' life, where he lived, what he taught, where he traveled, etc. Again, maybe you don't believe the deeds to be what they say they are but regardless, they are a historical account of his life. The book of Acts (the fifth book) is a historical account of the spread of Christianity in the years following the death and resurection of Christ (or maybe just the death if you are a non-believer). It tells the story of the disciples of Christ, everything from how they organized to where they traveled who they met, etc. Again, you may be inclined to discount some of the miracles described but the travels, people, etc are real and a historical work, not fiction. Most of the rest of the New Testament are letters written to fledgling churches describing the trials facing them and how they should act, etc. Again, all true, historical accounts, not fiction.

As for the Old Testament, again most of it is a historical record of the times. Once again, you may not believe some of the miracles happened as written but the story of Moses, the many battles, and the like are historical references. Most of these stories can be verified in other historical works. The spin may be a little different but the historical references will be the same. Basically, the point is that the bible is as much a history book as it is a guide of how to lead your life. The notion that it is all "fiction" is ludicrous and it is disappointing to hear such non-sense. Even when I was a non-Christian, I new the historical significance of the bible.

I feel as though I've begun to ramble a bit so I think I'll stop shortly. Before I do, I would like to say that I find you to be an interesting individual Master Zen. You appear to think much as I did just a few years ago. I was more that willing and quite able to "out-argue" what I considered to be the most zealous of Christians. I think it would be interesting to sit down and discuss many of your arguements. I guarantee that you could "out-argue" me since I have a fledgeling knowledge of the bible. However, I think it would be interesting to be on the "other side" of the debate. I will tell you a few things I have learned, being on the inside looking back. Most of the people that cow-tow to your arguements do so for 1 of 2 reasons. 1- they do not know enough of the bible to "win" a debate and thus can't provide an effective arguement, thus usually stop trying and get defensive. 2 - consider you to be closed minded and thus "not worth the effort", thus not ending the debate and getting even more defensive. This is a position I have found that far too many people take with their religion. These people tend to have a "blind faith" which can be just as dangerous as no faith. I would suggest that if you really want to debate religion, that you find a minister, etc to debate against before declaring yourself the victor in the arguement. They will be well versed enough to give you a valid debate and, if you find a good one, open-minded enough to be willing to debate the issues rather than decide you "aren't worth the effort".

[Albert B]

Before I go, I did want to comment on the original review and a couple other things. Personally, I think the sight doing the reviewing goes a little too far in bashing fantasy and what they see as the "occult". I would love to see their review of the Harry Potter books. I think they are quite harmless and quite entertaining and anything like this that gets kids into reading as much as they have have to be a good thing. I can only imagine the rating one of the books would get.

However, I do find it somewhat disturbing that some of the most popular games are ones that promote violence, mayhem, etc. I believe that mature individuals can enjoy some of these games without destroying their faith, psyche, etc. However, the fact that immature youths are the primary players does bother me. I have played many hours of Duke Nukem 3D, Carmageddon, Rogue Spear and other violent games. I find them to be fun, especially multiplayer versions. However, I do not let my kids watch me play these games much less play them alone. I think the sight has valid points and offers a service to parents. However, I find it quite ironic that they use such a high degree of detail in describing the inappropriate behaviours of some of the games.

As a final note, I suggest that some of you work on your debating and observation skills. For those wanting to know what the "biblical content of civ 3" is, the statement says "biblical material AND/OR educational material". There is much educational material to be found in the game. Also, pointing out the nuclear war, war, city razing, etc. if you read the comments about their reviews and such, there is a discussion that the manner in which violence is dipicted ways as much as the amount of violence. If razing cities displayed a scene of mass murder or during wars your spearmen's heads rolled across the screan then the game would not rate highly. The violence in civ 3 is minimized and not portrayed in a manner that glorifies violence, etc. There are valid complaints to be made of their reviews but this is stretching it at best.

[Master Zen]

Albert B:

I actually enjoy discussing with religion with christians because I find them to be much more knowledgabe than catholics (my family is catholic and so is 90% of my country). One of my friends is a die-hard christian and we constantly argue (in a good sense of course ) and one of the most heated topics is, you guessed it, evolutionism vs. creationism. I'm surprised why so many christians favor creationism since most catholics I know are evolutionists, and both have the same source of faith (bible)

Speaking of the bible, I do think in general most religions are a good base on whch to lead a morally good life. My philosophy however, is that is not "necessary" since smart individuals can form their own moral base not necesarily basing it on a holy book. After all, some morals are quite universal. You don't need the Bible to know that stealing is wrong for example, I know it's wrong because I don't like it happening to me so I won't do it to others.

Faith, to me, is also an interesting topic. Do we really need a deity to believe in when we can believe in ourselves? Not that we as indiviuals are gods or anyting in that sense but I mean it in the way that only believeing in our own capabilities and flaws can we truly become a better indiviudal. I don't believe life is a part of some master plan becasue all the good things that have happened to me in life have been beacuse I have been smart enough to make them happen, and all the mistakes I've made is because I've been stupid enough to allow them.

So that pretty sums up my philosophy. At this stage in life I find it unlikely to change since I'm pretty happy and secure about it.

Anyway, very intelligent post.

[Master Zen]

As for games, I think it all comes down to parent's education. Parents should know what their kids are playing, watching on TV etc. but not ncessarily prohibiting much of it (after all, prohibiting things is what incites many of them to do it). A smart kid will know that games like Quake are just fiction and are meant only for fun. I find it surprising when religious leaders or tv shows say that after the latest school shooting, the guys listened to Marilyn Manson and played games like Doom as if it were the cause of their evil. Those kids were usually poorly taken care of and gien little attention and so were much more suceptible to the negative image of these games instead of dismissing it offhand. 99.99% of all people who play those games are not psychos and the psychos will do what they do with Harry Potter if they have no Doom to resort to.

Finally, about the Civ3 review. I don't agree that not "showing" blood and gore in a violent act makes it less bad. On the contrary it might make a violent act come acrsoss as normal. Look at modern warfare in which most people never even see the people they kill. This results in a very biased view since if those people saw the slaughter firsthand they might have been reluctant to do it.

The impression I get of this site is that they are too overly concerned about the "superficial" or graphical violence, and not the violence deep down and it is not fair to slam on one type of violence and ignore the other.

[MrBaggins]

Yup... In many ways Civ3 encourages and sanitizes ethnic cleansing.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace


The Theory of Gravity is "Only" a theory.

Actually it hasn't been the "Theory of Gravity" for a long time. It's the Law of Gravity now. It's only called a theory in Civ3 because that's just what it was back then.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Master Zen




Einstein once said that science brought us closer to God. Most Christians I know always quote this believing that ultimately science will bow down to the bible. I think Einstein's intent was that science would bring us closer to true knowledge, the REAL god.

No, actually he meant God. He was both Jewish and a Theist. In fact he once said that because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred, he felt that our lifeforce must continue on after the corporeal being was long gone.

[Albert B]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So that pretty sums up my philosophy. At this stage in life I find it unlikely to change since I'm pretty happy and secure about it.

Anyway, very intelligent post.

First, thanks for the compliment. Second, you don't know how familiar your statements sound. Your philosophy sounds exactly like what I use to believe. Much of that I still believe and much of it very Christian in nature, probably more so than you realize. The big exception of course the lack of need for a diety. My guess is the only thing you need to become a "good Christian" is to accept Christ as your savior. Of course that's all anyone needs to do, it just sounds like you might be closer than you think.

I'm about 9 years older than you now (according to your profile) and I know that at that time in my life there was nothing that would convince me of that. That was at the height of my "sinical years" as I like to call them. I still can't exactly put it into words what caused me to change my perception but mostly it involved meeting the right people at the right time. The same may or may not happen for you in the future but if it ever does I think you will see what I mean.

Personally, I still struggle rectifying some of my beliefs with the bible as well as accepting certain parts of the bible due to the scientific aspect of my nature. Evolutionism is definately one of those elements and another one is the whole Noah's ark story. However, I always take a bit of comfort from a quote I read while in college from some famous religious studier. I would have to look up the exact quote but the gist was that there is more belief behind honest doubt than in blind faith or something like that.

Anyway, this is a great discussion that is completely OT, but sometimes you just can't help yourself.

[Master Zen]

Well, I'll try to find this thread in 9 years and reply to that!

[Albert B]

Back to the games, I again agree with much of what you say. You can't outright ban a teen from playing a game and you can't blame games, movies or books for anyone's actions. There is much to be said for personal responsibility regardless of your beliefs. The same can be said for the inane lawsuits that get filed in the U.S. on a daily basis.

In the news here now, the wife of a pro baseball player is sueing a company that makes a diet supplement that he took that contained ephedrine (sp?). He had a known history of liver problems, dehydration and such and virtually must know the history of the drug. It is apparently the drug companies fault for making it even though it was the players personal choice to purchase and use it!

Also, as for the reviews, I agree that the violence in civ should probably get it downgraded in that sites review. I was only pointing out that according to thier definitions found on their site, the violence is "ok". Personally I think their obsession with what they call the "occult" and such is way overboard. Something like Heroes of Might and Magic recieved an F basically just do to the "magic" part. The violence there is as minimal as possible for a war/strategy game and is noted as such. But because of the magic items and spells, it will surely corrupt any that play it. I think that is ludicrous.

I am about to read a book called "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It is suppose to be a very powerful book about Christianity. After seeing this site, I really want to finish it so I can ask them their opinion of this book and the fact that Lewis also wrote the "Chronicles of Narnia", one of the all time classic fantasy series written. The best known book in the series is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". I would like to here their take on the "occult" content of the series.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Albert B
I really want to finish it so I can ask them their opinion of this book and the fact that Lewis also wrote the "Chronicles of Narnia", one of the all time classic fantasy series written. The best known book in the series is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". I would like to here their take on the "occult" content of the series.

The Narnia Chronicles is packed full of Christian allegorical imagery. Aslan as Christ, etc. etc. In fact, there are many Christians up in arms because Harper Collins want to "secularize" the series and make it more Harry Potteresque.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Stuie

The Narnia Chronicles is packed full of Christian allegorical imagery. Aslan as Christ, etc. etc. In fact, there are many Christians up in arms because Harper Collins want to "secularize" the series and make it more Harry Potteresque.

Now that would be a shame...

Speaking of fantasy tales, I'm changing the subject quite radically but I wanted to know the name of this fantasy story I read waaay back in 7th grade, it was in a US textbook the ones you get for English class (it was maroon colored I think). Basically the story was about this kid who had to do something and was stalked by a shadow throughout his travels from island to island.

Anybody know what the hell I'm talking about?

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Stuie


The Narnia Chronicles is packed full of Christian allegorical imagery. Aslan as Christ, etc. etc. In fact, there are many Christians up in arms because Harper Collins want to "secularize" the series and make it more Harry Potteresque.

Yeah, C.S. Lewis specifically said that Aslan was representative of Christ. He wrote another book related to Christianity, but I can't seem to recall what it was... The Screwtape Letters maybe.

Although J.R.R. Tolkien never overtly drew direct correlations to Christ and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, his son C.J.R. (IIRC) did mention that the Nine Companions all had portions of Christ in them, as well as the Apostles. Examples I believe he used were: Gandalf's resurrection; Frodo's "weight of the ring"; and Boromir treachery-turned-fatalism.

Just my $.02

[Traelin]

Albert B,

Not to stay OT (I promise I'm done on this one, really! ), but you raise some interesting similarities between my Christian (more specifically, Catholic) doctrine and my scientific beliefs. I believe in the Big Bang and in the Theory of Evolution, but with a twist. I do not believe humans evolved from animals, but I do believe that we evolved from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens to our current manifestation, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I also do not take ALL of the Bible literally (i.e., the Old Testament), because I look at it as a means whereby an ancient, uneducated culture attempted to describe the Genesis in the only means they could. They couldn't fathom a google, so my educated guess is that described things according to a day. This logic could be extended to their descriptions of Noah's, Moses', etc. longevities, too. To me, when they said that person X lived 756 years, they were saying he lived a heck of a long time.

I've always found it interesting that the Biblical order of events WRT the Creation correlate exactly with the geological order of events. Just a simple point, but to me it's pretty darned cool to brainstorm.

EDIT: Oh, and who was it that said math is the language of God? Was it Einstein or Hawking? It's pretty cool to view the incredible order of the universe WRT math, especially such events as the Fibonacci sequence.

[Cyclotron]

This thread is final proof that the best OT discusisons are never in the OT.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
This thread is final proof that the best OT discusisons are never in the OT.

In my short time at Apolyton, the best discussions have NOT been in the OT. Some of the threads are just too stupid to bother posting.

[Trifna]

Traelin:

Personnally I do not really see a chasm between the theory of evolution and theology, Christianity: it may come from animal, but animal is animal and human is human. From a certain moment it wasn't animal to me. Where? I believe that from the moment it is able to chose between good and bad, and not only between "it hurts" and "I like it" it is capable of moral decisions thus responsible of what it does.

[Ripley1001]

I liked the article, anyone who read it must realise that it is opening up the game to people who are not within the computer game culture and that to me is a good thing. The distinction between RPG`s RTS`s or TBS`s is only meaningful to those within the gaming culture. Easy meat for those noob haters. (were they ever new to anything).

Evolution - well, its still a theory, if you get up from your keyboard you will find the theory is still a theory under continuous development..... We do so much want it to be true though.

Violence within games. It appears that people on the forum are not concerned. Admittedly not if you are 13 years old ploughing your way through GTA III`s interesting scenario`s. For the rest of us, being run down by heroic joyrider types is not the ideal way to end a day. Anyone still believe there is no connection between games, films etc and the real world?

The article actually sees CIv III as positive in this respect but like other posters I cant help noticing that the strategies encouraged in CIV3 would probally see you in deep trouble at a War Crimes Tribunal.

Surprisingly, some posters are hostile to a positive review, gadzooks. I suppose tolerance, religous or otherwise is not going to be a major characteristic of people heavily into dominating the world, albeit a fictional world.

Nevermind all that nonsense when is PTW going to be playable/enjoyable over my lan, never mind the internet, yes I want a patch and I want it now.

[pedrojedi]

As Master Zen and Cyclotron7 said, good OT discussions are often found on other parts of forums (it's not just this one, heh...)
Of course, there comes a time when such conversation must end. I feel the time is coming at any moment, so I'd like to address a few comments of my own, besides the ones I already did before.

Cyclotron7 said something way earlier that left a "not-right" sensation about it, and I'd like to rectify it.

Theory: an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

Most people who say "it's only a theory" are using the colloquial version of the word, which is more similar to "conjecture" or "hypothesis" than the technical meaning of the word theory

Thus, in a scientific sense, it is true. There really isn't any "might" about it. Of course, on a certain level, nothing is certain, but Creationism is not a scientific theory and evolution really has no competition as far as its specific sphere of explaination.

Well, I must disagree with thee, as a theory, well, "is just a theory".

As a man of science myself, I must say that it is wildly accepted that science has a "margin of error". Sometimes the theory is very strong; so strong to become a Law. Most often, specially when dealing with things that we didn't knew or saw, we conjecture about what happened or what may have happened or may not. Such work comes like a Sherlock Holmes to some people, and it's kinda like that: we find evidence, formulate a theory, and test it if we can, to see if it works.

If it works, great, then it comes to be a fundamented theory. Still a theory, because ultimatelly we can't prove that the results were true to the theory or just a coincidence to what we expected. So, lots of experiences are done and we get a probability, based on number of experiments and results.

Pulling this to my field, most works with practical application on medicine comes through numbers like "odds ratio" or "confidence interval", concepts of statistics that involve on most papers little theorization on "how that worked" or "what exact mecanism that drug have". But I know from colleagues and friends who do their researches on chemistry and physics that such concepts apply to them as well, as most theories remain with a statistical error.

Such is the beautifulness of science that it is not just a granite thing, written on rock to never be changed: it is evolving, malleating, changing constantly as we discover new things. And that is the difference between science and religion: science changes and evolve, as religion stays almost the same through millenia.

Practical example: Newtonian physics. It was accepted for almost 300 years that Newton had formulated some of the most unchangeable laws of nature, and his works were the utmost truth in physics. Anyone who is doing it in a university knows that Quantum Theory almost completely ignores what Newton wrote, as most of his formulas could not be applicated on this "new" field of research, and were eventually considered "wrong" - at least when comparing to quantum formulas and theories.

Ripley1001 said a wise thing: we so much want science to be "the" truth. Many scientifical biases come from such "wanting".

Another practical example: Carbon 14 testing for age. It went wrong so many times. One of them involved a labirinth made by two guys, who left it on a beach some years ago. Scientists found it, theorized it could be from an old european tribe on Mediterraneum, and tested it. Thousands of years old. NOT, at least for the guys who remembered doing it. And I'm not even talking about Christ's death blanket! (I forgot the name of that thing)

Trifna - Good and bad become arguable seeing some animal's behaviors, like those dolphins or chimpanzes. They seemed for many years "good" creatures, but recent field researching found disturbing acts of cruelty made by those two specimens.
The concept of Moral, more than moral distinctions, is a real quantum leap of intelect evolution. Even if it is used to choose the "wrong" ones.

Still, sometimes the company of an animal seem more pleasant than a human company. Specially on these violent days, where wars are fought for beliefs and money/political donations. This is the time when I really become a cynic about "man's superiority" or "human's nature".

Nevertheless, I got too extensive, I think. There's a lot to talk about it, and it's a shame it is OT here. Maybe we should consider a transfering...?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ripley1001
...
Anyone still believe there is no connection between games, films etc and the real world? ...

Films and games are often a reflection of the real world, but the real world is worse. Nuking a city or starving your population IRL is not as fun as doing it in CIV3. Shooting someone in Counter-Strike is more fun than in the real world.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Albert B
Back to the games, I again agree with much of what you say. You can't outright ban a teen from playing a game and you can't blame games, movies or books for anyone's actions. There is much to be said for personal responsibility regardless of your beliefs. The same can be said for the inane lawsuits that get filed in the U.S. on a daily basis.

Well so much for me not contributing anymore.

You are so right. My number one wish for this country would be to create more restrictive tort laws, but the chances of lawyers (i.e., politicians) creating laws restricting other lawyers is slim to none.

People in this country always want to blame someone or something else for their problems. I think that if we all took more personal responsibility and stopped blaming games, TV, etc. for societal blunders, we'd be SOOO much better off. I may be Catholic, but that shouldn't dissuade my common sense from dictating to me the silliness of banning "questionable" games.