Easy in both cases. First, remember that they can’t mix the audio and the game themselves is because it wouldn’t be permitted by the license agreements for the audio, i.e., put them together, and it’s infringement.
Easy in both cases. First, remember that they can’t mix the audio and the game themselves is because it wouldn’t be permitted by the license agreements for the audio, i.e., put them together, and it’s infringement.
Take out the audio dialogue and replace it with blank audio. You’ll still have subtitles that will work. Then rely on additional modders to add content.
Traditionally, same sex relationships were taboo in TV, movies and games. When they’re there, they’re often defined by subtext and innuendo. Remember Buffy TVS from the ‘90s. There was an entire episode in which Buffy and Riley having sex was a plot point. But when they wanted to give Willow a same sex relationship,…
It has Barbara Gorden being paralyzed and sexually assaulted by the Joker just to drive her dad crazy. Yes she later became Oracle but that wasn’t the original intent of the story.
I have strong, strong doubts that this current push is going to get any traction. This was hyped to take pressure of the NRA. That’s it.
I don’t know what to tell you other than that what you said is all very, very wrong. Army contracts are for 8 years of service, with most being between 4 and 6 years of active duty. For a time in the mid-2000s, the army offered short-term contracts to fill gaps, but those were for two years of active service after…
. . . has now been taken over by military rejects who don’t know the difference between an “unlawful combatant” in downtown Baghdad and a guy walking home from his job in Detroit.
They wanted to see how he would react if Joe Schmoes were trying to get a rise out of him by talking shit about him and his mom.
Agreed. The more I re-watch it, and the more I see it against the backdrop of other James Cameron movies, the less I like it.
You’re right, I did make the assertion. And I supported my assertion with 1) evidence of when media can influence behavior, 2) the absence of evidence of influence in other situations, and 3) an explanation that connects 1 and 2. In most cases, that’s a solid theory.
Well, like I had said previously in this thread, we have actually seen instances, even on a mass scale, where we can say that fictional media caused people to act differently. You can look at The CSI Effect, and how juries have come to expect detailed forensic evidence for crime even where it shouldn’t exist. You can…
You joke but I legit planned a career in civil engineering after playing Sim City II in the late-80s, early 90s. It took me a little time to realize that the job isn’t quite like that, and that no job is. But at that age I had no idea what I didn’t know - Dunning-Kruger effect.
It’s not complicated, but there’s no evidence that it’s true either. Because at the end of the day, all of the things you mentioned, hitting someone with a crowbar, shooting them, running them over in a car, are not complicated in and of themselves. People do them because they’re common sense ways to do awful things…
I think the question hinges on what we mean when we say “influenced.” I think you’re talking about influence in very abstract terms. As in, is anything derived from a video game manifested in their behavior. But they are talking about it as in, did video games cause this behavior.
Probably very similar to the minority of humans who would stab their friend because The Slenderman told them to. Either that, or the minority of humans who already would beat another human to death, and want to do it like Gordon Freeman because it would be cooler.
Proposal: Media, including video games, can influence people. It’s just that it can only really influence people in specific ways that do not include turning people into mass shooters.
Exactly. BUT, the thing I would caution is that one of the things they’re trying to do with this is to get women, feminists and liberals in general to make knee-jerk responses, and declare that men have no problems, and that even trying to discuss it is sexist. They’re sexist, but not because men have no problems.
There are problems that disproportionately affect men. Men bear the brunt of workplace accidents. The male suicide rate is higher than female suicide rate and there’s an intense stigma against men seeking treatment for mental health issues. Men also suffer differently from forms of workplace sexism, where men can be…
Whether they “need to” is relative. If you’re saying that, morally speaking they need to accept science, I agree. But frankly, most people need to accept science on a moral level for the good of our society.
You’re wrong. Doctors are closer to engineers than scientists. They identify problems and either design solutions or apply solutions designed by others. It’s fundamentally different from the scientific method.