"Is this a trailer for the upcoming version of Counterstrike? I think I've played this level but they've updated the character skins somewhat."

Not that I know of. This is a short film by an animation advertising company called "Three Legged Legs."

http://www.threeleggedlegs.com/repertoire/

Is this a trailer for the upcoming version of Counterstrike? I think I've played this level but they've updated the character skins somewhat.

Honestly, I really don't see how this is any worse than many American video games that uses a "fake" arab country as the plotter of evil; a "fake" country in the desert where the evildoers speak in an arab accent and plan acts of terror (COD, Counterstrike, etc).

The difference is that these guys don't care if they offend their constuency and can lay their balls on the table.

Because concerning the subconscious, it is reality-debasing violence. Cutting without blood, physical damage without pain, violence consistent enough to be considered a main plot gimmick; All done in the guise of charming and playful action in a media form that is primarily considered for kids(and trusted by kids.) Like child-targeted commercials and all subliminal media, it's not that I have a problem with the content but rather the way it is relayed. Questioning the subconscious impact of media is a skill that children have not yet developed.
the corporation - advertisements targeting children:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMDPql6rweo

Tom and Jerry - The Two Mouseketeers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjytLcdpZk0

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Curious to hear why in your book Tom and Jerry is R. I can understand why Saving Private Ryan is PG-13 though...

In reply to this comment by rabidness:
Coming from a gamer :
I would rather see the kid playing counterstrike instead of team fortress 2.
I would rather see the kid playing a game with realistic violence with realistic consequences(screams, blood, death) than playing a cartoonish parody of violence which whitewashes nearly all consequences of the act.
I would rather see the kid watching Saving Private Ryan(rating PG-13 in my book) instead of Tom and Jerry(rating R in my book.)

I think most childhood violence happens due to the 'acceptable'(aka unreal) violence in our daily media consumption. It subconsciously debases all reality of the act. I ask you, are parents who slaughter an animal on the family farm worse human beings because the child now has an understanding of death? I hope you realize 'no.'

I know most parents want to hold onto their child's innocence as long as they can, but that's their style of parenting. It takes all kinds, right?

Curious to hear why in your book Tom and Jerry is R. I can understand why Saving Private Ryan is PG-13 though...

In reply to this comment by rabidness:
Coming from a gamer :
I would rather see the kid playing counterstrike instead of team fortress 2.
I would rather see the kid playing a game with realistic violence with realistic consequences(screams, blood, death) than playing a cartoonish parody of violence which whitewashes nearly all consequences of the act.
I would rather see the kid watching Saving Private Ryan(rating PG-13 in my book) instead of Tom and Jerry(rating R in my book.)

I think most childhood violence happens due to the 'acceptable'(aka unreal) violence in our daily media consumption. It subconsciously debases all reality of the act. I ask you, are parents who slaughter an animal on the family farm worse human beings because the child now has an understanding of death? I hope you realize 'no.'

I know most parents want to hold onto their child's innocence as long as they can, but that's their style of parenting. It takes all kinds, right?

>> ^campionidelmondo:
What kind of argument is that: He knows it's not real. So I suppose you'd let him watch the Saw movies or Hostel, since he knows it's not real. Why do you suppose the game has an M rating? Do you even know what that means?


I think Saw and Hostel are something of a different class from Counterstrike. They are intentionally designed to disturb people. I don't think that CS is likely to give the kid nightmares...

Unless your argument is that you think watching Saw will actually make the kid go out and reenact the things on his friends.

>> ^gorillaman:
He's wrong there's no evidence that playing counter-strike harms children? So present the evidence. Stop making assertions you can't back up. None of your three posts so far have contained a single scrap of useful argument.

>> ^spoco2:
I just looked at one of this guy's other videos (of his son at 4 playing counterstrike) and he has this comment on it:

For those who feel the need to post "bad parent" comments, get a life. There is no evidence that playing this type of game does anything but improve hand eye coordination. My son is a social and academic achiever at the top of his class. He knows the game is pretend.
To me, this is no different than playing "cops and robbers" with cap guns as I did as a child.

He is so wrong.




That's not exactly what I was saying 'He is so wrong' about actually. I was saying that in regards to it being no different to cops and robbers. Playing cops and robbers is effectively playing tag... really, that's all it is. You could also suggest that Counterstrike is also like playing tag, except that it involves playing with guns and seeing relatively realistic depictions of death.

Look, I know that the kids that I see who are exposed to this sort of thing a lot play and behave differently. My own kids, when they watch a small bit of Star Wars (only some bits, even that film can scare a 4 year old), they get into pretend light saber battles with each other and play really roughly for the next day or so. Not let them watch things like that, and instead they're building train tracks, building things out of lego etc. etc. Constructive vs Violent play.

I don't have the time to track down a study that says it's harmful to kids, I'm sure they're out there, I'm sure that there are also those that say it has no effect, I'm rather numbed to 'studies' these days as so, so many of them are poorly done, don't take into account other factors and come to bizarre conclusions. Not to mention you find out that many of them are sponsored by some group with a vested interest.

I would really like to see what this kid is like in 10 years time, I really would.

I'm certainly not a 'shelter my kid from everything' kind of parent, certainly not in regards to climbing trees and what not... but really, do they have to be exposed to this kind of violence, especially violence they are in control of at this young an age.

Give them a chance to have some innocence before you try to turn them into your gaming buddy.

It's all about age appropriateness. Not 'games are bad' vs 'games are good'... just in general, think about what you expose your kids too. If they DO get exposed to violence or the like, at least discuss it with them so they understand it.

Coming from a gamer :
I would rather see the kid playing counterstrike instead of team fortress 2.
I would rather see the kid playing a game with realistic violence with realistic consequences(screams, blood, death) than playing a cartoonish parody of violence which whitewashes nearly all consequences of the act.
I would rather see the kid watching Saving Private Ryan(rating PG-13 in my book) instead of Tom and Jerry(rating R in my book.)

I think most childhood violence happens due to the 'acceptable'(aka unreal) violence in our daily media consumption. It subconsciously debases all reality of the act. I ask you, are parents who slaughter an animal on the family farm worse human beings because the child now has an understanding of death? I hope you realize 'no.'

I know most parents want to hold onto their child's innocence as long as they can, but that's their style of parenting. It takes all kinds, right?

He's wrong there's no evidence that playing counter-strike harms children? So present the evidence. Stop making assertions you can't back up. None of your three posts so far have contained a single scrap of useful argument.


>> ^spoco2:
I just looked at one of this guy's other videos (of his son at 4 playing counterstrike) and he has this comment on it:

For those who feel the need to post "bad parent" comments, get a life. There is no evidence that playing this type of game does anything but improve hand eye coordination. My son is a social and academic achiever at the top of his class. He knows the game is pretend.
To me, this is no different than playing "cops and robbers" with cap guns as I did as a child.

He is so wrong.

I just looked at one of this guy's other videos (of his son at 4 playing counterstrike) and he has this comment on it:

For those who feel the need to post "bad parent" comments, get a life. There is no evidence that playing this type of game does anything but improve hand eye coordination. My son is a social and academic achiever at the top of his class. He knows the game is pretend.

To me, this is no different than playing "cops and robbers" with cap guns as I did as a child.

He is so wrong.

Firstly, to say his son is a 'social and academic achiever at the top of his class' WHEN HE IS 4? His at pre school for god's sake, they don't do tests, they don't have a 'top of the class'... geeze. And what does he mean by 'social achiever' anyway? One of those kids that is in the 'gang' of thugs that so often exist in pre schools... yeah, I'd be so proud to have my kid in one of those.

And I'm not one of these people who say games are the root of all evil, and protect our children etc. etc. BUT there are appropriate ages to introduce your kids to violent play, and shooting people in a game which shows death and blood, and really... you think that 4 is that age.

Well, good luck to you sir... but then you are the sort of person who finds this amusing... so... yeah, I'm sure those kids of yours will make you so proud.

Still, I'm going to upvote this video, as I'd love to see some videosift discussion on it.

OK, this is A-Grade terrible parenting. This kid is going to grow up to be a little thug.

Why?

a) He's 5 and they're letting him play counterstrike... a game about shooting people dead, in a realistic setting with blood and all... great.
b) They all laugh and gloat when he shoots the guy (poor sportsmanship by the sounds of the guys there)
c) The kid says 'Shut up Dad'... so he already has no respect for his parents, brilliant... brilliant.
d) His dad's final laugh 'Heh Heh Heh Heh'... you can TELL he's a competitive jock dick who loves reveling in others misfortunes and will goad his kids to be competitive jocks too.

I have three kids, two of which can play computer games (3 1/2 and almost 5), it will be many years before they are allowed to play a game like this. They currently play games like Thomas and Friends or Lego Star Wars or Tonka to the Rescue (or whatever that game is called) or Audiosurf. Nothing with real violence at all... (and even with lego style violence like in Star Wars you can see the effects in their play).

And their play time is REALLY limited. They were allowed to play for 10 mins or so a day if they wanted, but now my eldest is on a 'break' for a week due to carrying on like nothing else because he wanted to play again in the same day.

They're too young to spend much time on a pc. play with lego, play in the garden, read a book etc. etc.

I love computer games, I have a Computer Science Degree, I make my living coding. I didn't touch a computer until I was 7 (well, there wasn't really any ability to until the mighty ZX Spectrum in 1983), and so while I'm happy for them to be familiar with PCs, enjoy the occasional game, I do not want them to be hanging for their next game at all.

I feel sorry for this kid, I really do.

The top 2 FPS of all time are on consoles? Sorry, but whoever made the list isn't an FPS player then. Halo and GoldenEye belong on the list, but above Counterstrike, COD4 and Quake? Boo.

Bollocks for being a recruitment tool in the form of my favorite type of media? Certainly. But I'll be damned if I can say the same about the actual gameplay itself. This (not tax)free game is really unparalleled as a tactical/squad-based FPS, retail or otherwise. I'm sure many naive people have been enticed enough to join the Army through this fantastic game but I really can't argue against it's gameplay. It makes Rainbow Six look and play like Quake 3.

This is the anti-CounterStrike. Tribes, Operation Flashpoint, and this rank as some of the deepest, most rewarding, steep-learning-curve multiplayer FPSs available. Worth a try, if anything, to see what the fuss is about.

Okay, because I can't sleep I'll weigh in on this one more time.

I really, truly can appreciate both sides of this issue. I really can. Though I already stated my position and still stick to it, I also recently mentioned elsewhere that I don't like echo chambers, and if you block out every single voice with which you disagree then you will have effectively created your own echo chamber. I hope that's not how this new tool is used, but if it is then so be it. However, keep in mind that people who routinely tune out opposing points of view already have a filter set in place, and it's called the "brain". I guarantee that virtually everyone here, even the most open-minded among us, has a mental check list of at least one or two users whose comments they already ignore or skim lightly at best. Therefore this tool will aid in ignoring only a little more than what we already do automatically, really. And when a comment thread becomes incomprehensible because of blocked comments, even the most diehard blockers will probably temporarily unblock an individual on their black list, if only to understand what the hell is going on.

Regardless of all the if's and and's of the previous paragraph, lucky's last comment is probably the one that really drives it home for me. No one should have to feel harassed by profile comments, either private or public. I've never been harassed here, so it saddens me to learn that more than one person here has had it happen to them. Therefore I think it really does come down to the lesser of two "evils", if that's the word one wants to use:

- Ban the harasser, or
- Block the comment

To me, blocking the comment is the lesser of the two. And let's be clear: Just because you think you're not being a harasser doesn't necessarily make it so. Maybe you think you're only being assertive or just inquisitive, but if someone is being annoyed to the point that he or she feels like leaving because of your profile comments, then chances are you're a harasser. It's not an automatic conviction; some people are too sensitive, I'll grant you. Still, if you're being blocked because of the profile comments you leave, then it's time to take a savage moral inventory, IMHO. And even if you're not a harasser, then it's still better to have your comments blocked than to have a Siftquisition called to have you banned because of your comments. Even if you're exonerated in the proceedings, I imagine it would leave a bad taste in your mouth.

In my mind there are no easy answers. Still, I believe dag and lucky's solution is the best, all things considered. However I hope and pray that no one says that the victims need to get thicker skins or toughen up. Sure, maybe they could. And when they do then maybe they might feel compelled to counterstrike, and then that brings about another counterstrike, etc. And then we have a flame war. Yeehaw! And those are just a riot, ain't they? So before we let every bad exchange turn into a shootout at the OK Corral, let's at least give comment filtering a try.

Earlier versions of Counterstrike the hostages could follow the terrorists as well.