Noel Gallagher: "Brutal Videogames" A Reason For London Riots
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In an interview where a rioter was asked "why?" he had an interesting argument.
I shall however paint a picture of what he looked like first. He was wearing a hoodie with the hood up. He was black, he spoke like he had never been taught the English language, he was wearing tracksuit bottoms, Reebok trainers and he was wearing a lot of fake bling on his fingers and on chains. He had this to say,
"Coz we 'av 'ad enuff of da way we iz treated init."
I think that sums it up really, he is blatantly the devil spawn of video games.
Seriously though, him and about 98% of the rioters were simply chavs. You want a solution, eliminate the chav population. Englands population would drop by around 55%, the streets would be 200% cleaner, pollution would be 100% down and crime would drop by about 500%. Just my two cents.
I shall however paint a picture of what he looked like first. He was wearing a hoodie with the hood up. He was black, he spoke like he had never been taught the English language, he was wearing tracksuit bottoms, Reebok trainers and he was wearing a lot of fake bling on his fingers and on chains. He had this to say,
"Coz we 'av 'ad enuff of da way we iz treated init."
I think that sums it up really, he is blatantly the devil spawn of video games.
Seriously though, him and about 98% of the rioters were simply chavs. You want a solution, eliminate the chav population. Englands population would drop by around 55%, the streets would be 200% cleaner, pollution would be 100% down and crime would drop by about 500%. Just my two cents.
I think its unfair to to say that video games are the cause, I play alot of GTA and not once has it crossed my mind to mindlessly assault and murder people. If your going to blame anything blame the fact that they are witless fools with nothing better to do than destroy and vandalise their own community effectively
You know us wellEarnest Cavalli said:
OT: I can't take Noel Gallagher seriously. After everything he's done. I just can't.
I can however, sypathise with him about seeing his brothers shop ravaged by looters. These guys do need to be stopped.
As much as I feel sorry for Noel and his brother, Liam during the riots, I think blaming videogames is a sloppy arguement for violence, especially given that he himself has attacked his own brother during a recording (as previously stated) and smashed the guy's guitar for no other reason than he "didn't like what he was playing".
Coming from Noel, this statement feels incredibly hollow.
Coming from Noel, this statement feels incredibly hollow.
Noel and Liam have a fairly colourful history of attacking one another.Steampunk Viking said:
I bet video games made them violent towards each other.
True, although I have yet to hear Liam say the same. Although knowing Liam, he'll probably be pro-games if only to anger Noel. I've never seen such chaos between two siblings, and I've seen alot of chaos in families!Funkysandwich said:
You actually have a very good point.Seventh Actuality said:
I think the media is the real problem here. They're just trying to make articles that either piss people off or scare them to get more viewers/readers. They just seem to want higher ratings more than they want to report actual news. I know if they don't get the ratings then they can't report anything, but they should have some standers. If they lose their journalistic integrity then soon it will all turn into yellow journalism, and we have more than enough of that!
True. He didn't just blame it all on one part of media, but that's not really an improvement.The Lunatic said:
Instead of calling one part of free expression the root of all evil he calls two of them evil....what happened to some people just...being evil? Why must we try to give evil people excuses?
I know the human ego is a fragile thing, but surely we could accept a simple concept like; "Some people are just bad.", right?
Setting Oasis aside, why are you guys so thick headed to admit that youngsters these days are way more exposed to violent media these days than they were 10 years ago, and 10 years before that? An yeah, games play a huge part. Not so much as to start riots though. Thugs in England are nothing new and I'm pretty sure that most people on the street were football hooligans out for some "fun". I can almost imagine these droogs at the Korova milkbar, drinking drencrom, sharpening up and getting ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence. Fuck'em. And one meter behind, looters and thieves. That's how I see it.
But going back to games and their effect, you need to put them in context.
- We're not all alike. Sure, we here might be articulate and smart, but a quick glance at "ugliesttattoos" or "peopleofwalmart" is enough to make you loose faith in humanity. Picture those morons behind a video controller and see if you can still rally your defense of violent games with a straight face. Needless to say, most of my other arguments take this first argument as their foundation.
- We live in different societies. In America, if you don't won a gun, shotgun, assault rifle, sinper rifle or a damned minigun, you deserve a cookie. And if you are around 18 and have just finished playing CoD for the first time and you don't rush to the "Friendly Joe BFG ammo store", you deserve another cookie. I live in a former oppressive communist state, so in our country, 20 years after the revolution, public violence is almost non-existent, while France, Ireland and England have had riots. This is indicative of the type of violence you can find on casual street corners. And it matters. Don't expect a Romanian kid to go buy a gun and shoot people in school anytime soon. And our schools are fucked up beyond recognition. But kids restrict themselves to simple bullying and calling their bigger brothers.
- Graphics have improved. In Doom you used to point at 10 pixels and they just changed color a bit. Hard to take them seriously. But even so, in their time, they were regarded as dangerous. Right now we have realistically dismembered bodies, with blood and muscles glistening win Pixel Shader 3. I used to drool at pictures from NFS1 and Flying Corps. I used to regard Flight Simulator 95 "as real as it gets", so what would a kid me say if he saw DCS A-10c for the first time? I used to play Mortal Kombat 1 and found the blood awesome, but even I got sick of seeing the fatalities of the last one.
- Save Game/Load Game. I actually missed an important exam because I was dead tired. In that half-awake state after 2 hours sleep, I though to myself... no problem, I'll save the game now, sleep a few more hours, and then load to this point and go to the University well-rested. Guess what... didn't work. Some of us old veterans had the pleasure to play the "5 lives, that's it" games of old. Compare those to say... Max Payne (ooold game by now): "slow motion corner jump, bam bam, dead, load", repeated 10000 times. Compare Counterstrike, where you payed for your death by having to wait for the others to finish, with... any similar game these days. Dead? WTF?! 15 seconds respawn timer? /console: leave server. It's not hard to imagine that some kid in this world might think "what if I took my dad's pistol, went outside and shoot a policeman, then if I'm caught, I just save and load?". Ok, that's stupid, I agree, but I'm positive that those 10 year old kids on the street never though about any consequences. When playing games, you never LOOSE, you never get proper killed, you never go to jail, you just loose progress and click the load button. You can do anything without any real consequences. Can it affect your real life? Why the F else would anyone tattoo his forehead with a Naruto headband?!
- What you kill in games matters. Killing a zombie, a robot, an alien or just pumpkins, is not the same as using a full machine gun in an airport. We're seeing more and more opportunities to kill "civilians", either in GTA, Prototype, Saints Row okok, most are open world gta style games. If you take revenge on polygons dressed in a casual shirt and jeans, who knows, something might tick in your brain some day. You might not act on that tick, but again, who knows? Why not a beach shooter, where you shoot water guns at giggling naked women? That might actually be more dangerous to your mental health, but... hmm, I really gotta start a game company. What I'm saying is that shooting tanks and aircraft is not the same as shooting people, regardless of how nazi or terrorist they are. You can still have military simulators, you can still have war games, but there's a limit beyond which games really can start to affect your mind.
- Most psychological tests of the effects on playing violent games were short-term. You need to remember that the current generation has been exposed to violent games from birth. Maybe you're 5 and you weren't breastfed properly because your idiotic mother has a mage to gear up in World of Warcraft. Guess what your first game is gonna be.
Can all videogames lead to violence? No. Playing Angry Birds will not land you in the Dark Side anytime soon. Can all killing games lead to violence? Again no, a World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, MGS or Spinter Cell fan won't cut your throat on the street to steal your loot or gather intelligence. What about realistic games? A good combat flight sim will make you good at strafing runs, but unless you can stealth your way into a military airfield... Can strategy games make you aggressive. At chess, yes, and that's good What about Read Dead Redemption? Well, I don't see too many horses on the street these days and you aren't in the old West so it's as safe as you can get. It has the same chance to tempt a kid to play cowboys with his dad's loaded gun, as seeing "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" movie does.
So guess what games these guys are bashing at? Guess which games I was referring to in the above notes? A handful. GTA type games (I'll forgive Infamous here but not Prototype) and Modern Warfare type games. So? Assassin's Creed is better than GTA and it has the historical setting that acts as a "brain firewall", and Team Fortress 2 does things even better with a cartoon design. I mean, in view of all this, can you REALLY defend the game Manhunt? Really? Even Rockstar can't, that's why they toned down their games, just look at L.A Noir. A GTA where you're a cop?! Doing good?! Wow.
Well, I've said my mind. And expect to be bashed for particular parts, whatever. I for one have enjoyed Manhunt. I've loved Prototype and used to play it in the beginning of the game when people were people (not zombies), just to hear their screams when I splattered a girl on a wall. And I wouldn't hurt anyone in real life. I hate seeing pain for real, no matter how much I love it in the Matrix On the other side, I know a thug for a friend, who can rip your leg off and if I ever mention playing a game near him, this is his reply "Games? What are you? 12?". And he doesn't even like Football
My conclusion is that such dangerously violent games are a sort of Joe Camel corporate candy. They sell. And kids end up playing them. If there's a chance that the world might be a worse place in the future if we don't ban them, why defend them? Why not let them take the same road as Postal 2 did?
But going back to games and their effect, you need to put them in context.
- We're not all alike. Sure, we here might be articulate and smart, but a quick glance at "ugliesttattoos" or "peopleofwalmart" is enough to make you loose faith in humanity. Picture those morons behind a video controller and see if you can still rally your defense of violent games with a straight face. Needless to say, most of my other arguments take this first argument as their foundation.
- We live in different societies. In America, if you don't won a gun, shotgun, assault rifle, sinper rifle or a damned minigun, you deserve a cookie. And if you are around 18 and have just finished playing CoD for the first time and you don't rush to the "Friendly Joe BFG ammo store", you deserve another cookie. I live in a former oppressive communist state, so in our country, 20 years after the revolution, public violence is almost non-existent, while France, Ireland and England have had riots. This is indicative of the type of violence you can find on casual street corners. And it matters. Don't expect a Romanian kid to go buy a gun and shoot people in school anytime soon. And our schools are fucked up beyond recognition. But kids restrict themselves to simple bullying and calling their bigger brothers.
- Graphics have improved. In Doom you used to point at 10 pixels and they just changed color a bit. Hard to take them seriously. But even so, in their time, they were regarded as dangerous. Right now we have realistically dismembered bodies, with blood and muscles glistening win Pixel Shader 3. I used to drool at pictures from NFS1 and Flying Corps. I used to regard Flight Simulator 95 "as real as it gets", so what would a kid me say if he saw DCS A-10c for the first time? I used to play Mortal Kombat 1 and found the blood awesome, but even I got sick of seeing the fatalities of the last one.
- Save Game/Load Game. I actually missed an important exam because I was dead tired. In that half-awake state after 2 hours sleep, I though to myself... no problem, I'll save the game now, sleep a few more hours, and then load to this point and go to the University well-rested. Guess what... didn't work. Some of us old veterans had the pleasure to play the "5 lives, that's it" games of old. Compare those to say... Max Payne (ooold game by now): "slow motion corner jump, bam bam, dead, load", repeated 10000 times. Compare Counterstrike, where you payed for your death by having to wait for the others to finish, with... any similar game these days. Dead? WTF?! 15 seconds respawn timer? /console: leave server. It's not hard to imagine that some kid in this world might think "what if I took my dad's pistol, went outside and shoot a policeman, then if I'm caught, I just save and load?". Ok, that's stupid, I agree, but I'm positive that those 10 year old kids on the street never though about any consequences. When playing games, you never LOOSE, you never get proper killed, you never go to jail, you just loose progress and click the load button. You can do anything without any real consequences. Can it affect your real life? Why the F else would anyone tattoo his forehead with a Naruto headband?!
- What you kill in games matters. Killing a zombie, a robot, an alien or just pumpkins, is not the same as using a full machine gun in an airport. We're seeing more and more opportunities to kill "civilians", either in GTA, Prototype, Saints Row okok, most are open world gta style games. If you take revenge on polygons dressed in a casual shirt and jeans, who knows, something might tick in your brain some day. You might not act on that tick, but again, who knows? Why not a beach shooter, where you shoot water guns at giggling naked women? That might actually be more dangerous to your mental health, but... hmm, I really gotta start a game company. What I'm saying is that shooting tanks and aircraft is not the same as shooting people, regardless of how nazi or terrorist they are. You can still have military simulators, you can still have war games, but there's a limit beyond which games really can start to affect your mind.
- Most psychological tests of the effects on playing violent games were short-term. You need to remember that the current generation has been exposed to violent games from birth. Maybe you're 5 and you weren't breastfed properly because your idiotic mother has a mage to gear up in World of Warcraft. Guess what your first game is gonna be.
Can all videogames lead to violence? No. Playing Angry Birds will not land you in the Dark Side anytime soon. Can all killing games lead to violence? Again no, a World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, MGS or Spinter Cell fan won't cut your throat on the street to steal your loot or gather intelligence. What about realistic games? A good combat flight sim will make you good at strafing runs, but unless you can stealth your way into a military airfield... Can strategy games make you aggressive. At chess, yes, and that's good
What about Read Dead Redemption? Well, I don't see too many horses on the street these days and you aren't in the old West so it's as safe as you can get. It has the same chance to tempt a kid to play cowboys with his dad's loaded gun, as seeing "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" movie does.So guess what games these guys are bashing at? Guess which games I was referring to in the above notes? A handful. GTA type games (I'll forgive Infamous here but not Prototype) and Modern Warfare type games. So? Assassin's Creed is better than GTA and it has the historical setting that acts as a "brain firewall", and Team Fortress 2 does things even better with a cartoon design. I mean, in view of all this, can you REALLY defend the game Manhunt? Really? Even Rockstar can't, that's why they toned down their games, just look at L.A Noir. A GTA where you're a cop?! Doing good?! Wow.
Well, I've said my mind. And expect to be bashed for particular parts, whatever. I for one have enjoyed Manhunt. I've loved Prototype and used to play it in the beginning of the game when people were people (not zombies), just to hear their screams when I splattered a girl on a wall. And I wouldn't hurt anyone in real life. I hate seeing pain for real, no matter how much I love it in the Matrix
On the other side, I know a thug for a friend, who can rip your leg off and if I ever mention playing a game near him, this is his reply "Games? What are you? 12?". And he doesn't even like Football My conclusion is that such dangerously violent games are a sort of Joe Camel corporate candy. They sell. And kids end up playing them. If there's a chance that the world might be a worse place in the future if we don't ban them, why defend them? Why not let them take the same road as Postal 2 did?