• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Hypnotron

Members
  • Content count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Neutral

About Hypnotron

  • Rank
    Member
  1. If you are 10 and you steal a toy parent has final say? I don't know what that means.   I'm saying the child is still the one who is going to get in trouble with the law.  Not the parent.  In the U.S.A at least, the child will be charged with the crime and face legal punishment.    My point about the "personal liability doctrine" is regarding this robotic mantra we site about "personal responsibility."  If suddently we start sending parents to jail for crimes committed by their children, you throw that doctrine out the window.  That wont ever happen because of the political dogma we preach.  Do a mental exercise and consider what starts to unravel there if you start charging the parents.  Parents that are both working just to provide basic necessities.  Parents that say "Why am I responsible?  I see my kid one hour before school and one hour before bed!"  Everyone else has more influence on my kid than I do!  If these parents are still ultimately responsible for their childs actions then it's for no logical basis other than they are the legal guardians.  What other reasonable basis is there?    My position is that all of society must be responsible for the welfare of the children being raised in it.  This includes media producers.  And to be clear (and to reitterate for the xth time) I'm not just talking about video game violence.  I'm talking about media in general.  I'm not talking about violence either.  I'm talking generally about virtues and vices that children pick up. 
  2. noatom: making parents ultimately responsible would be a good first step.  But at least in the US, this is not the norm.  Most children who commit crimes (for example) serve time in juvi or jail or prison on their own.   The reason parents are not held responsible is because it would be the first chink in the armor of the "personal responsibility" doctrine.  It would open up discussions about things like worker pay that results in both parents working and children seeing their teachers and peers more than they do their own parents during K-12.  Then of course refusing to deal with the pay issues, you'd have to blame the next adults on the totem pole... teachers.  Otherwise we'll just have it your way and do nothing and let the kids rob and kill the people you know.But we'll blame the kids and throw them in jail and that should make up for your loss.   noatom:  I don't know how to ask this question without seeming antagonistic.  But how do you know your view of "blame the parents" is not just a product of media indoctrination?  What is the basis for the position of parents in our society being the be all and end all of child guidance?  There are societies past and present in humans and non humans where all members of the tribe or society rear the children for the benefit of the society.   Children are influenced by so many things, it's really a cop out in the end to just say "parents are responsible!" or "personal responsibility!"  Even if you judge that the parent(s) are MOST responsible (besides the fact you're now opening the door to mutliple responsiblities) is that any excuse for the rest of society to ignore the welfare of children that aren't theres?  We already know that is not the case.  So the question is how far does that responsibility for other children of the society go?
  3. Thank you Zido_Z   I can't really confirm or deny what you've said.  I can only say that in my opinion, focussing on video game violence as a causal factor in the sorts of shooting rampages we've seen is not the type of discussion game developers want to get involved in.    I think the scope must be expanded A) To all media B) to all  negative media messages.   I just feel that would be more productive in terms of spurring broader research and the stopping of the scape goating of games in particular.
  4. @proanim   Thank you for your reply.    Personal anecdotes you may know of course do not prove anything.  However, they do reinforce certain positions.  It is quite understandable.  Either way I'm not proving or disproving anything.  Again for the record, I think focussing on violence of video games is silly.  It's a mental trap.  We need to focus on media in general and the messages they propogate.    Media is apart of our culture.  Media shapes our culture.  We must understand this concsiously.  How much of your understanding of the world comes from the media?  It's impossible to know these days because you wind up asking "How much of my parents understanding comes from the media to which they bestowed upon me?"    That is why I advocate that we be very open and honest and we seek to better humanity and not simply make media that seeks to earn a buck at the expense of society.   Also to be clear, I don't advocate legislation to this affect.  I advocate advocacy and teaching each other and letting this sort of change happen organicly if it will.
  5. But maybe now is a perfect time for people in their own free time to contemplate THEIR meaning of free will and personal responsibility.  And then, when they've finished doing that, they can contemplate the meaning of those terms as OTHER people use them.    Because if you logically consider the implications of these concepts, they beget a ton of questions.  Does a newborn baby have freewill?  Does it have personal responsibility?  At what point in time does it have either?  Do those things exist purely, intact and unbiased throughout the life of that individual?  If the baby's personal responsiblity / free willed-ness as he progresses to adulthood can be influenced by members of society (parents, peers, teachers, media, etc) then does this not denote a multi-shared responsibility?    If not, why not?  In other words, are we or are we not our brothers' and sisters' keepers?   Oh boy.....
  6. Ok I'll answer you ultimate question first.  I wasn't expecting any "discussion."  I'm sharing my ideas.  The only discussion I'm involved in are with people replying to my post.   But I dont understand why you think i'm tunnel visioning.   If you don't think games are treated differently when... THEY ARE by virtue of oh... i dunno.. the media or politicians or law makers or parents TREATING or ATTEMPTING to treat them differently as is quite obvious, then I don't know what to say.    You have broadened your definition of "treated differently" to have no meaning frankly. Everything is persecuted therefore it's all the same. Well OK then sir. If it makes you happy, I WILL CONCEDE THE POINT that games at one time or another have been treated unfairly just like anything else. THIS IS BESIDES MY POINT. I don't care about this point at all. It's completely irrelevant to my original post.   Cigarette labels are hardly analgous surely you see this.  I don't know why you brought them up.  We are talking about the much more subtle and undetermined influences of mass media... not on scientifically proven issues of public health.  This is why I wrote my opinion.  If I could cite scientific articles of fact, I wouldn't need to write an opinion.   Further we are not talking about the past, we are talking about the present.  And my position is that ALL MEDIA needs to be questioned on the messages they are sending.  This was in my original post.  This is still my original point.  Somehow you keep reverting to some disparity I hold about video games.  And if you think i'm somehow harping on the mistreatment of video games compared to mass media, I msut say, you manufactured this entire line of argument.  I'm merely stating that TODAY in the current media cycle, games leading to violence is a major topic and im saying WE SHOULD NOT FALL INTO THAT TRAP and we should revert to an argument that centers around ALL MEDIA.   You seem to agree with me but yet, you don't really want to hear what I'm saying.  This is all just minor bull... read what I wrote in my original post.  I said quite early one, we should not fall into this trap, we should look at games as we do all other forms of media.   My goodness.
  7. and don't forget, there was recently a California law that attempted to regulate sales of violent video games to children.  That is jsut another example of how they ARE treated differently.   We will not mention the escapades of Jack Thompson.  But again, its entirely besides the point I'm making!   But again, I will take alot of the blame for the misunderstandings here.  I made alot of assumptions that in retrospect were not obviously apparent.  That is my bad.
  8. @Bacterius I admit that when I started this topic somehow I assumed everyone knew this topic stemmed from the recent news headlines about the Vice President meeting with the NRA and Representaives of the Video Game Industry.   That is the launching off point of my article.  My point is that why single out video games, why single out video game violence and why this silly argument that videogames cause kids to SNAP!  But that is what has happened here.  I'm saying we need to avoid that trap and instead talk about all of the "tropes" that frivolous mass media is perpetuating.. not just violence, but women as sex objects, and everything else.
  9. @Bacterius I doubt you will find much support that video games are NOT treated differently than other forms of mass media.  I think they SHOULD NOT BE.  But they are.  But i think this entire line of discussion is outside of the point i was making.  Vice President Joe Biden just met with "representatives" of the video game industry and the NRA.  These have been headlines in the last few days.  It did not say that he met with members of tv, film, video games, music, etc.   As for your second paragraph, my original post addressed all of those issues.  You call it free will, i referred to it by it's second cousin "personal responsibility."   Free will in the sense you use it does not exist.  If it did, there would be no such thing as advertising.  Free will requires first of all, that people are fully concious of all the positives and negatives of all their actions.  They are not.  This is logical because we are not perfect decision making people not just because we are "weak of will" but also because we are ignorant of consequences.  Parents are too.
  10. I should also clarify when i say they ARE harmful, I mean potentially  harmful to some in the sense that they can instill or reinforce negative values.  Now if it is your (whoever you are) personal oppinion that such values are not negative, then so be it.  Truthfully in my own sense of morality they are and that is why this entire series of post is my opinion.  We are here sharing ideas.  I am here sharing my ideas. 
  11. I think I understand what is causing the confusion so I will put a stop to it right here and now.   I used a provocative title.  My title suggested that I was persuing the argument that violent games cause kids to go snap.  That is not my argument, but it's clear to me now why people would think that it was (especially if they didn't read the content of my post).   To be honest, i used that title because that is what is lately in the media "OMG, GAMES MAKE KIDS SHOOT UP THE BLOCK!"    To be honest, I just assumed people would read the content of my post first and see that I was using it sarcasticly.   Anyway... my position is that friviolous and rather "base" games just like frivolous and "base" tv/film/comics/etc, are all harmful and that as creators we might think about this on a conscious level.  You may disagree and that is fine.  But maybe it clicks for others.  Our media does affect us.  As creators we can ignore it, but first we must have the choice by acknowledging that there is an effect.
  12. @ Bacterius: well you will have to be more specific on what it is you do not understand.  I am trying to work with you but you seem to be ignoring things I've said in previous posts.  What do you fail to see exactly?  I have not said once anywhere that games cause kids to go boom.
  13. I should have added, and that they are harmful / damaging in THAT way.  It's a much more subtle argument than "games cause kids to go boom!"  I'm saying frankly, our willingness to make entertainment products that sell FIRST and that educate and instill virtue LAST is harmful.
  14. @Bacterius   I specifically refuted that position.  I'm not saying games cause people to become violence.  Incidentally anecdotal personal accounts don't say much.  But as I said that is beisdes the point.  The whole violent games cause violence in people is a LOSER argument.   Your reply exemplifies why I think this argument is a loser.    I am saying that instead of falling into that trap, we should not be looking at games specifically, but all mass media (particurlarly mass entertainment) in terms of the messages they send us.  I think they reinforce alot of negative views and attitudes.
  15. 1) Violent games cause violent behavior is a no win position.   2) Games are no different from all other forms of media.  The depths of their harm (specifically talking about frivolous entertainment that pander and only care about making a buck) on our culture and on young people's views on the world in particular is much deeper than the lightweight born loser argument that violence in media cause kids to go BOOM!"