I'm not going to go into specifics and say that should be banned and this shouldn't be banned , that's irrelevant . What I will say is that any game that treats killing as the end and not the means ( In Gears there a ranking systems , k/d ratios , team based competition etc so killing is only part of the experience ) should be scrutinised more heavily than a game that treats killing as the means , this is not to say that killing for a purpose is good , it may very well be the case that all games that involve interactive murder have a negative impact on the human mind ( but that's subject to scientific/psycological research and a whole other argument.)

Rape games IMO  push it too far , it would be unrealistic to heavily censor violent games at this stage ( not that , that means it would be a bad thing)  but considering our culture and history of violence it's pretty much an unchangeable part of us . I don't think that means we might as well take on rape on board , the less evils the better.

It probably is a double standard to say Yay to murder and nay to rape , but violent media has already been accepted by the media , society etc there's not much we can do about that . But when rape rears it's ugly head I say we knock it out before it get's the opportunity to intergrate itself with society.

In theory it's absurd to be so contradictory but in practice it's neccasery.

This thread reminds me of one of the greatest users to ever grace the IGN boards, T1m0t4y.

This was his sig: "I love playing Halo. The other day I killed 2 guys with six pistol shots to their heads, and then I took out a rocket launcher and killed all their friends.
Then I went inside and played Halo."

I don't really care what games people are playing. It's not my business.

I don't really care whether people steal clothes from stores , it's not my business.

Did you know that it is normal practice for clothes stores & many other retail outlets to incorporate the cost of stolen stock in the sale value of the clothing , you may be paying more than you would have if people didn't steal clothes.

I don't really care if people stuff their faces at McDonalds , it's not my business.

"Overweight and obese patients are costing London health chiefs £2.2 billion a year" which is funded by the tax payer here.

My point is that when you are in society you have a level of responsibility to everyone else in society as your actions will almost certainly affect many people , this is somewhat recognised by the law ( littler regulations ,parking fines etc ) . On the contrary, it is your business if these types of games are linfluencing potential rapists.

I think that I nearly completely disagree with you on several points.  Let me try to explain why...

The potential problem here is that sometimes what seems "self-evident" winds up being false.  For instance, while it's possible that violent games inspire people to do more violence... it's also possible that people who play violent games are less violent in real life than they would otherwise be, because perhaps the games give them a release for their anger.  Kind of like a "safety valve."

That's why many people would like to have solid evidence, before making decisions about these sorts of things.

I bet you I could invent a "useful end" for a rape game, but is that really the point?  Whatever the "in-game" end of the rape, how about the real-world end?  Rape games probably provide some people with sexual gratification, in the same way that murder games (whatever their in-game justifications) probably gratify violent desires.

Even if you or I think that getting off on rape is questionable, there is no question that many people (both male and female) have rape fantasies.

I suspect that the game exists to satisfy those fantasies; is that worse than a murder game existing to appease violent fantasies?

Woah.  Here's where I really start to get nervous! :)

The idea that "killing for killings sake is worse than killing for some purpose"... well, the answer to that is maybe.  But it completely depends on the purpose in question; just having "a purpose" doesn't make killing better at all.

See, I tend to believe that everyone is justified in their own minds for their own actions, if only at the time.  So, I doubt that many people "kill for the sake of killing" or "rape for the sake of raping."  Perhaps they kill or rape to satisfy certain urges, or address some of their crippled psychological needs, and so on.

But it's sometimes a larger problem when someone decides to kill "for a purpose" or "to achieve a goal."  Stalin, for instance, certainly had goals that he was trying to achieve... and his decisions helped to kill millions of people.

So, what's "worse"?  A scum-sucking murderer who kills for the thrill?  Or Stalin, who kills (if indirectly) with a sense of duty and passion?  Well, I dunno, but Stalin's probably going to do more damage to the world.

I'd rather people be very careful with the idea of "justified homicide."

And I say that the idea of murder being used "to achieve some sort of constructive purpose" is maybe more dangerous by itself than the idea of senseless rape.

But, as a writer's prompt, how about this as a purpose for rape: to father children; have a family.  Or, to provide pleasure to another? (Remember that in many fantasy-rape scenarios--and I believe the game in question--the victims eventually "enjoy" the sex.)

But even if murder can potentially have "purpose" (though you can kill senselessly in GTA and others, right?), and even if we agree that rape cannot... why would that make murder games acceptable, if the problem with both of these games is that they result in more real world crime?

I disagree that killing is a small part of the overall experience of most of the kinds of games we're discussing.  The most popular genre in video games at the moment is FPS--you're shooting something, and likely killing it.  Games are "mature" and "hardcore" due to the level of violence, the amount of splatter.

These games are all about killing.

And we shouldn't censor them at all, not anymore than we should censor movies or books or conversations.

People can glorify crime all they want; they just can't commit it.

Your first example is faulty because the individual's actions directly harm other individuals.

Your second example is faulty because the London's decision to fund the fat people is not caused by fat people overeating.

The examples you need in order to support your position do not exist.

The distinctions you made IMO are irrelevant  ,even the examples I gave are irrelevant ,  the point is that there is a link between our actions and other people when we are in a society .

The ordinary person can't be a member of society and say that what ever anyone else does in that society is none of their business , if your an active person you will have to interact with the man on the bus to get a ticket , call the abulance for medical assistance , call the local council if the rubish man doesn't collect your bins.

What I think you mean is that , " i'm not concerned about what that person does and really it should be no one's concern" that's more reasonable than saying "this persons actions has no influences on me what so ever " , I guess it also depends on how you define "business".

Those breasts are rather unrealistic, especially for a simulator.

@Ninjakido: Rape can be justified with putting your genes into circulation, if we go by using your logic. It's not for pleasure or to hurt someone.

Anyway, i just have to wonder about your logic in the example, where the "means" for killing in multiplayer games is to get a score, wouldn't getting a score be glorifying the killing -> the more you kill, the better you do.
Let's make online multiplayer for the game, more people you rape, more you are going to score.

As for killing for killings sake opposed to killing for a purpose, as i already said, you can justify the killing with any purpose you want, but it doesn't mean that it would be justified by any other but your own mind.

As for the logic, you should learn about Gödel and liars paradox (although Gödel has mathematical take on the subject), but it should show why you can't make logical arguments based only on the first impression given by common sense.

I do not think you understand our positions.

I posit:  "Playing a game by yourself does not harm other people so I don't care."

I believe you posit (correct me if otherwise):  "Playing a game by yourself harms other people so I care."

Your first example was an instance of someone directly harming another individual through theft.  We can draw a better analogy to your example between stealing cars in GTA and stealing from a department store.  Stealing in a game is not the same as stealing from an actual store.  This is widely recognized as such and the reason games are given age labels is that not all children are able to fully distinguish reality from TV/movies/video games.  As you grow older, your judgment improves (we hope) and you are able to tell the difference between video game antics and real life.

Your second example was misplaced by having a 3rd variable--the people deciding to do the taxing.  Just as you do not blame your clock when your parents tell you it's time to go to bed, you should not blame random people for a poor (in your mind) decision of the government.

And while I appreciate your enthusiasm to put words in my mouth by telling me what I mean, I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.