It is in the nature of most mammals to care for and to protect their own children and those of others of the same species. I actually agree with that but you have to remember that it is only natural (literally) to care more for children. It doesn't make sense to differentiate a child from an adult. Is the life of a make-believe child really worth more than that of a make-believe adult? Is this kind of interaction and feedback socially responsible? And so then what's the difference to killing a minor? The slow motion camera tracked her head's explosion before lingering on the crimson fountain spurting from her neck stump. Last night I blew the head from a homeless scavenger girl, one who was barely into her twenties. Problematically, in singling out and self-censoring one particular type of 'crime' in his game, Pagliarulo by implication justifies all the others as being non-gratuitous and necessary. That some violent games have grisly features cut or dulled in order to secure a specific rating is news to no-one, so why the need to elaborate on and justify the decision in the public sphere? Because, says Pagliarulo, the decision to self-moderate was a moral and ethical one. Pagliarulo states that killing children using Fallout 3's impressive engine is not something that would have passed ESRB checks anyway. Gamasutra examines the unkillable children in Fallout 3, finding the decision hollow for various reasons:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |