Given that we won't have world peace, ever, your argument is kinda irrelevant.

Aside from that, if we did have world peace, the conflicts of decades prior still exist, and could be used for games. We haven't had a major war in 70 years, yet we still make games as if one happened tomorrow (or about prior major conflicts).

Gosh, I wish I was as prescient as you. Can you give me next week's lottery numbers too? One way or another there will be world peace, the only question is whether the human species will still be around at the time. I think we will be. Do you seriously believe humanity can carry on the way it is/has for another 1000 years, or 10,000 years or 500,000 years? Is human civilisation really incapable of evolving to a more mature state than it is now? Assuming we survive, I think world peace is an inevitability.

Interesting points of view. I think if human consciousness doesn't transform away from viewing violence as a legitimate response to conflict, and  brute force as psychologically or emotionally satisfying then violence in society will remain. So, if violent videogames are a popular form of outlet for aggression then we will still have significant violence in society.

It doesn't matter that there haven't been any major wars in 70 years. This is not a necessary condition for war and violence to be part of the public consciousness. In fact with the advent of the mass media and now with instant coverage on TV and through the internet the public's direct exposure to war and civil unrest is greater than it ever has been, except for those who live in the actual warzone of course. War isn't the only form of severe violence in the world, and in like manner war games are not the only violent video games on the market.

Yes. Yes.

Seriously though, violence is not just a human trait. It's present in just about any species I can think of, and it's especially present in all carnivores. Because if you eat meat it's kinda hard to find food if you're not violent, is the reason. It's also nice to be able to defend yourself from attackers that want to eat you.

And I've also seen a great deal of movies and books dealing with the subject of creating a human race devoid of anger and violence. It never ends well. Sometimes it ends catastrophically. What we can do is try to control our impulses and find other outlets for them. I think vidoegames and movies are a great way for that.

It could happen the other way as well.

Not as likely, but it is possible.  The problem is... governments are trying to think "ahead of the curve."

For there to be anything close to "world peace".  There has to be a uniform agreement of equality and right to resources and oppurtunity.

Such a thing needs to be accepted on an individual basis.  Currently, we do such things on a government basis which leads to many dissenting opinions for a variety of reasons.

It stops the top-down cultural revolution that would be needed for such a state to occur.

To get it where 99.9% of the world hasn't heard of a lot of that stuff though... that will certaintly take a while.

As for it's effects on the videogame industry?

I can't imagine it will actually change much about the videogame industry, even with war games unless your suggesting the government of said time bans all talk of war.

People don't like war because people are violent. I like war games and i'm about as nonviolent a person as you can get. People like violent games because they're fun!

Hell, I play Aerobiz Supersonic. This isn't because I have a great fascination for being an Airline CEO or an Airline CEO's life is particularly interesting to me. I play it because it's a fun game.

As long as violent games have the same control mechanism... they'll still be considered fun.

Maybe they'll get rid of the blood and useless crap like that... but otherwise.

I would think it would be even more in demand. It would be more exotic if they portrayed things that could be real, but are real no longer

Human beings are violent, period. It takes a significant amount of will to counteract that. Video games mostly _help_ with those urges, creating an outlet for that energy. The reverse should be asked, is peace sustainable without video games?

Though the real answer is we will never be free of violence. It's just not possible without a completely restrictive society the world over. Not gonna happen.

I think you made a great point Reasonable....

I would say that given the nature of humans and our desires,the 2nd scenario is more likely.

Firstly, six billion and counting HUMANS being at peace? It'll never happen. The only time humanity could unite is if faced with something which threatens their existence: the Formic (Bugger) War, or something similar. And that wouldn't be peace at all.

But, let's assume that this was someday the case.

Violent games could still be made. The majority are either in fictional settings, or World War II which ended 65 years ago. When a game (Haze, Six Days in Fallujah) tries to be set in a real and current war, people become upset and the game is canned or drastically changed. Modern FPS are about fighting terrorists (which is fine, it's not a war), or occasionally something ridiculous like war with China. But I digress.

Now, if you added on "no crime" (which goes from extremely unlikely to downright IMPOSSIBLE), I can understand where you are coming from. A few generations on, people wouldn't know what violence was. They would find it grotesque, and yes, games on the whole would probably become a lot more violent, if only because everyone who could stand violence had presumably been shot to stop them committing a crime at some point (Minority Report, anyone? )

Why the fuck would you want your "world peace"?

I can understand the general term for world peace which is the end of war but not your term which is to end all violence and crime. That makes no sense. Might as well make a world with out video games because I don't think robots play video games.