articles defending or attacking video games

attacking:
http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/familyresources/a/vidgameviolence.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/24/tech/gamecore/main676446.shtml
http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/teens/violentvideos.html

defending:
http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=4247084
http://www.helium.com/tm/158052/until-recently-active-synonymous

Personally..

I think people overreact to isolated cases of killings which appear to be linked to violent video games. These murderers clearly had something wrong with them to begin with; and would have found inspiration elsewhere for murders if not in videogames. The fact that the victim was playing the game in the manhunt case, as opposed to the murderer, is proof of how reactionary the media can be; without investigating properly, the issue of violent video games is certain to attract the attention of outraged parents.
In the case of these parents: it seems any excuse is sufficient for them to point the finger of blame elsewhere, rather than look at how they themselves bring up their children. It's quite hypocritical to complain about violent games being played by their children when they're the ones who buy the games for them, despite the big '18' certificate on such games. And regardless, any child will say they find the killing fun, just as how any child will at the same time point out it ins't the same as killing in real life. It's pretend killing, no different to playing cowboys and indians. And even if a game provides inspiration for one or two real life killings by some deranged psychopaths, is that justification for denying millions of sane people that game? And is it justification to attack the whole media of video games? I don't know about you, but I don't think so.
That said, I do agree that there is a limit to explicit content in a game. There is a difference between violence in a game to go alongside the game's theme, and having violence itself as the whole theme of the game. Nevertheless, even if the level of violence is grossly distasteful, I do not believe that necessarily influences people to kill. I'd say it's more inclination to switch the game off; relentless violence with no break would become tedious.
Then again I can't claim my opinions as absolute; everyone reacts differently to things.. and I'm not exactly a fan of most shooting games. They're fun for a little while, but shooting things quickly loses its appeal for me, so perhaps gamers who get more immersed in them are more likely to be influenced by them? Hmm, I'm not so sure, seeing as when I was younger (supposedly making me more impressionable) I enjoyed these games alot more, yet did not ever get the inclination to shoot someone in real life. But everyone's different, so thinking reasonably perhaps there should be a limit; nevertheless, the fact that everyone is different is all the more proof that parents should think carefully about how they bring up their own children, rather than simply finding a scapegoat in the form of video games.

Controversial video games

The first and probably most recent example of a very controversial game is Manhunt 2; the first game in years to actually be banned. The BBFC rejected it for classification due to the game's relentless killing, as it encourages players to perform kills in the most brutal and savage ways possible. Rockstar are hardly strangers to the world of controversy; bringing me to my other controversial game examples. the original Manhunt came under much scrutiny because of the killing of 14 year old Stefan Pakeerah, which was allegedly inspired by the game. An opdd case considering, it later emerged, that the victim was the one who'd played the game, not the killer. Nonetheless the fact that its vast amount of brutal killings was insufficient for a ban, yet it was for the sequel, brings questions as to either how extreme the level of explicit content is in the sequel, or as to the BBFC's classification; did they ban the game possibly due to controversy surrounding the previous game? There were calls for the original manhunt to be banned; indeed, it was banned in new zealand among other places. The BBFC claims the ban in manhunt 2 is due to the game's 'unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone'. However in recent interviews some of their reasoning seems a little questionable. In fact BBFC's press office manager Sue Clark's own admission of its findings is curious to say the least: "The interactivity element of it, one of the things we found, which we weren't really expecting, was that people felt that the interactivity slightly distanced them from the game. What with having to press buttons, you are more likely to be aware that you're playing a game." Of course, that somewhat contradicts the Board's self-admitted tendency to "bump the rating up to a higher category" in certain instances where videogames are concerned, while massively exploitative films such as Wolf Creek and Hostel navigate the classification process unscathed. This suggests some serious inconsistencies in the way games and films are rated alongside each other. The problem games face, which don't necessarily apply to film, is that it's much more difficult to make tweaks and changes to a videogame than it is to remove two or three seconds or several frames from a film. "It's a much more complex issue and in the case of Manhunt 2, as in the case of 'Terrorists, Killers and other Whackos', the amount that you'd have had to have changed or removed would have not made it a viable work which is why it was rejected." Yet if the interactivity suuposedly distances you from the game, is this logical to begin with?
The last controversial game I will look at is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; due largely to the 'hot coffee' mod, which allowed players to access a sex scene that should have been altogether removed form the game. The rest of the game, as with the otehr GTA games, was hardly immune to controvery as well; with the car stealing, vandalising, drive-by shootings (now possible on a bycicle!) and whatnot. It seems Rockstar has a taste for controversy with their games; most likely because it undeniably attracts attention. But are they going too far? Or are people overreacting to violence in video games?

violent shooters

so let's move onto the violent games where you shoot things, first off:

2006/ The rambo bros
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/306263
A mario game where you shoot koopas, mainly with a sniper rifle. I admit, it kept me playing till I died, unlike most non-violent games that I closed from pure boredom. It also gains extra violence points for taking a peaceful game franchise (mario) and adding in guns and blood. Not that I'm ever going to play it again, mind you.

Duck Hunt 1945
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/290917
a violent shooter + a violent shooter = a violent shooter. Pretty simple! Except it's also ridiculously difficult. Well made though, reloading animation's cool. Just, not very fun overall. Proves shooting does not equal fun.

Zombie Swarm
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/275479
manic zombie shooting. Actually very fun, despite its simpleness. I particularly like how to recharge the gun you have to frantically click on the battery as zombies continue to advance.
I actually had to tear myself away from this one.

Overall the violent shooters were more fun than the peaceful games.. but not necessarily. In fact thep eaceful game jazzy jones was my overall favourite of the bunch I tried.

peaceful games!

I don't completely get how a shooter can be peaceful, except that the lead characer's motives are usually peaceful. Assuming I'm supposed to research peaceful games as per se as opposed to specifically peaceful shooters, here are a few examples I found:

1. Jazzy Jones!
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/343778
absolutely brilliant game where you guide jazzy jones the cat through levels in an attempt to stop fred the evil. You actually resolve the entire game without directly attacking anything or anyone; you merely avoid obstacles. I've played the entirety of this masterpiece several times.

2. Cherry Cola
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/319527
place tools in certain places to guide a cherry cola to his goal. There was some kind of storyline but, it wasn't important. Anyways challenging, and no violence.. unless accidentally hurling the cherry cola to its death can be counted as violent. And the aim of the game is to avoid that happening, so... I'd count this as a good pacifist effort, you don't attack anything.

3. Fruit fall
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/332159
roatate the stage to line up fruit of the same colour and burst it. I beat two levels and got bored. But it was nicely made, and had no hint of violence, so well, that's that. If I wasn't so easily bored, I would have certainly played it more.

So there we have it. Games don't need to be violent to be fun. Well... they can be kind of fun without violence anyway.

New unit

An anti-shooter? Sounds awkward. At the moment I'm working on the idea of a gun constantly firing, and you have to avoid hitting anything. It's the opposite of the usual aim of a shoot em up, so therefore I'd say that classifies as an anti shooter. However I'm having trouble coding the gun to constantly fire at the moment. I'll probably come up with a different idea in the end though, but for the moment it's nice to have a basic idea to work with.

For now I'm looking at shoot em up games.. some more violent than others, most involving shooting, and with plenty of violence

finished!

Minor flash bugs fixed (credits glitch being the main one) and sketchbook work will be done once I write in a little conclusion. So yeah, done. I'm pretty pleased. Got alot of things added into my sketchbook today... may just need to add one or two more sources into the credits, nothing major

the flash

is finished! But I'm not gonna spoil the surprise on this blog. Anyway I need to write more in my sketchbook, so will do that in a moment.