| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The direction of the Democratic Party Posted by: Myboyjack - Leader [14826271] Mon, Nov 11, 2002, 15:28 After the mid-term election failure (despite the high-hopes and big talk of McCaulife, et al, it would appear that the Democratic Party is seeking direction – but is not sure what that direction is going to be. The battle for House Minority Leader, between Nancy Pelosi of CA and Harold Ford of TN , is shaping up as the defining event in the search for the party's direction. Pelosi would tend to lead the Party left to its traditional base and would seek to obstruct the Republican agenda at every turn. Ford is a centrist who supports Bush on the War. Personally, I believe that if the Democrats choose Pelosi over Ford – they risk being marginalized like never before. I really think that the Dems are missing the boat if they believe that what the electorate wants is more McCauliffe style confrontation. In 2000 the country was evenly divided between Bush and Gore. Last Tuesday the country voted about 53-47 Republican . If the party goes the way of Pelosi, my guess that by 2004 it will be more like 60/40. As a registered Democrat (of admittedly shaky convictions in national party) in a public office that worries me a bit. | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 425 | Madman ID: 114321413 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 18:25 |
Tree 423 -- I will note that you are apparently linking to the PC version which requires a downloadable mod that edits Rockstar's code. MITH -- Those seem to be NTSC Action Replay Max codes. I've already yielded the point that the code is in the game. I am merely asserting that it is disabled in t he course of ordinary gameplay. If the only way to access those scenes is through AR Max, then I believe my point is made in spades. | ||||||
| 427 | Cosmo's Cod Piece ID: 226231714 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 18:32 |
MITH: You don't sound like someone that plays a lot of games so don't get all bent out of shape if you feel I'm talking down to you. Mods have been around as long as the gaming industry. The first mods I can recall involved the original Doom game by ID Software probably a decade ago. Gaming companies have no control over the existence of mods. Ask anyone who has played the original Quake and they'll tell you that mods actually made it at least 2x better. "What kind of censorship? How do Hillary's actions lead to any censorship that wouldn't have happened anyway?" Without Hillary's grandstanding, that game is still for sale at Best Buy for those gamers who can legally purchase it. Today, it is gone. That is censorship. "So, CCP, exactly how has your perspective of this issue changed now that we know that Rockstar planted explicit sex in Grand Theft Auto?" It is the mod that turns a highly suggestive scene into an inappropriate one. I don't blame Rockstar one iota. I blame the person who created the mod and the code to unlock it. Rockstar buried this material into the game and it takes hours to unlock it. Have you yet addressed the topic of parental supervision MITH? Where are the parents at the store and the room in the house where junior plays? Do they play any culpable role in this or do we just wash our hands of them? "Anyone know what this means: JD3N-EV68-AGRW0 4PMG-6VNA-PBZQ7 BKR1-JF84-6Q23C U7Q0-6H91-6JATX 5540-HY63-181MY 7FB5-3052-PWB8N 03AH-5PBC-9K2T7" Those appear to be GameShark codes. A Game Shark is a third party piece of hardware and software designed to unlock things hidden in the code of a game that would otherwise be unattainable during the intended use. Game Sharks are primarily used to obtain cheat codes like unlimited ammo, invincibility, etc. It appears that to enter this code you not only need a code, you need to buy a piece of hardware that goes for $30 (that's what mine cost four years ago). Again I ask, where is junior getting the money? | ||||||
| 430 | Madman ID: 114321413 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 18:44 |
I think the 4 hex characters - 4 chars - 5 characters is a feature of ARMax instead of Gameshark, but the difference is immaterial; CCP could be right, and I'm sure there ARE Gameshark codes for the Hot Coffee scene if those aren't them. The bottom line is that Gameshark and ARMax and other 3rd party add-ons distort the game manufacturer's original product. The resulting program is something that the GTA authors did not intend. Now, of course, AR Max ALSO provides ways to get cheat codes that ARE allowed by the game. It's for this reason I haven't said that we can be 100% certain that the Hot Coffee scenes are not in any iteration of the game in any fashion, which is why I was trying to be cautious stating finding #2 in post 416. | ||||||
| 431 | Boldwin ID: 47611911 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 19:01 |
Distort nothing. They unlock what the game designers intended enuff to bother to develope code for. You are really ignoring that giant wink they are making when they don't actually make the easter egg easy to find. This stuff has been going on since almost the beginning of gaming and is just a promotional trick they use to prolong buzz about the game. Easter eggs are hidden intentionally to be found. Thus the name. | ||||||
| 432 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 25337239 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 19:31 |
CCP Gaming companies have no control over the existence of mods. If you're saying that Rockstar diodn't put the sex scenes in GTA, you're wrong. That much is plain and obvious enough to any dolt now. If your point is something else, its irrelevant. Without Hillary's grandstanding, that game is still for sale at Best Buy for those gamers who can legally purchase it. I don't believe there is anyone here who would believe this, except, apparently (sadly) madman. Again, from my post 413: Lets see; 1. ESRB publicly looks into whether the game contains explicit content that warrants a stricter rating - a week before Hillary has anything to say about the topic. 2. Explicit content that warrants a stricter rating is found to be built into the game. 3. ESRB changes the rating to accurately reflect the game's content. Your arguments are that (a) this is a bad thing and (b) this is Hillary Clinton's fault. Please. Now you claim to not only read her mind, but also to know that the ESRB aren't committed to their responsibilities. Today, it is gone. That is censorship. Your definition of censorship is as fluid as every other aspect of your argument. I blame the person who created the mod and the code to unlock it. Rockstar buried this material into the game and it takes hours to unlock it. Let me get this straught. You think someone - other than Rockstar - created the sex scene(s) while GTASA was still in the production stages and that Rockstar chose to include that content in the game?? And this somehow releases Rockstar of any responsibility for including the a sex scene in its game??? Have you yet addressed the topic of parental supervision MITH? Indeed I have. My points have sufficiently addressed the issue that parents are not able to keep a leash on their kids and they therefore cannot accompany them to the store or mall every time they go to buy video games. Like YOU said, crack down on the retailers. You have flip flopped on this topic. Do they play any culpable role in this or do we just wash our hands of them? My opinion is that parents are ultimately responsible for what they allow their kids to have access to. What you refuse to acknowledge is that (a) kids don't always do what they're told, meaning that the retailers need to accept responsibility and (b) parents need help in knowing what material includes content they choose to allow and what material includes content they want to prohibit. Parents should be able to rely on the accuracy of the ESRB ratings. You apparently don't think so, which is another of your flip flops. You were the one who wrote, "The ESRB is not censorship. It is a guide much like that in the movie industry. I take no issue with that guide". Please address your flip flops. We know that you are going to blame Hillary Clinton for all of this, even though it was in the news long before she was involved. (where was your outrage then - oh yeah you were praising the people investigating whether GTA needed a stricter code, the same people who eventually gave it). | ||||||
| 433 | Cosmo's Cod Piece ID: 226231714 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 19:55 |
MITH: "Gaming companies have no control over the existence of mods. If you're saying that Rockstar diodn't put the sex scenes in GTA, you're wrong. That much is plain and obvious enough to any dolt now. If your point is something else, its irrelevant." If you're going to comment on something, try and get at least a novice-level knowledge of it or read the posts in the thread. A mod is made by a third party. Gaming companies (per my quote) have no control over their existence. "Without Hillary's grandstanding, that game is still for sale at Best Buy for those gamers who can legally purchase it. I don't believe there is anyone here who would believe this, except, apparently (sadly) madman." Without the Hillary inquiry, you think the game would be gone today? You're insane. "I blame the person who created the mod and the code to unlock it. Rockstar buried this material into the game and it takes hours to unlock it. Let me get this straught. You think someone - other than Rockstar - created the sex scene(s) while GTASA was still in the production stages and that Rockstar chose to include that content in the game?? And this somehow releases Rockstar of any responsibility for including the a sex scene in its game???" That's not what I said. You're spinning. I blame the people who dug out the unintended code, the parents for unsupervising their kids, the retailers for not following the ESRB, and the people who create mods. "Have you yet addressed the topic of parental supervision MITH? Indeed I have. My points have sufficiently addressed the issue that parents are not able to keep a leash on their kids and they therefore cannot accompany them to the store or mall every time they go to buy video games. Like YOU said, crack down on the retailers. You have flip flopped on this topic. Do they play any culpable role in this or do we just wash our hands of them?" Where have I ever flip flopped on my belief that parents are partly to blame for this? When did I support the parents in any way for being negligent to their kids. Boldwin: "You are really ignoring that giant wink they are making when they don't actually make the easter egg easy to find. This stuff has been going on since almost the beginning of gaming and is just a promotional trick they use to prolong buzz about the game. Easter eggs are hidden intentionally to be found. Thus the name." For future reference, what gaming companies do sometimes to make deadline, cost, or to comply with a certain ESRB rating is that they leave scenes "on the cutting room floor". In order to fully extract the code one needs to invest hours upon hours to get it out to delete it before going to print with the game. Therefore, it is exponentially easier to significantly hide the code or garble it such that it will never be used during NORMAL use. Yes, there is absolute merit to that "wink" theory. I do think Rockstar displayed due diligence by requiring a total purchase of $80 (50 for the game, 30 for the hardware to unlock the scene), and an original rating of Mature. Where is junior getting the money? Could Rockstar have handled the PS2/XBox versions better and gone the extra mile to delete the code? Sure they could've. Given past precedent in the industry, they most certainly did their part and more to keep that particular scene out of the hands of kids. My whole point behind this argument is that I believe this is a first step towards censoring our media especially as it pertains to videogames. I'm 26, why can't I legally walk into Best Buy and buy this game? I could do it yesterday until Hillary had nothing else better to talk about. The problem in the videogame arena is that what exactly is a manufacturer to do now? The responsibility has to lay with the retailer. A link I mentioned earlier stated that the average gamer is 30 years old, well above even the AO (Adults Only) rating. GTA: San Andreas got that new rating yet WalMart, Target, and Best Buy yanked it from their shelves. That's censorship. I don't think it should be sold to kids. I wouldn't buy it for my kid. However, I and every gamer above the legal limit (which is the average gamer age, the "target market") should have every right to walk into Best Buy and purchase this. | ||||||
| 434 | Boldwin ID: 47611911 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 20:05 |
What I really find hillarious is the meme that 'it takes hours to unlock the code' as if that was a penalty or proves it wasn't meant to be found. The whole point of these games is to spend hours unlocking all the juicy goodness...wait that didn't come out right. | ||||||
| 435 | Madman ID: 114321413 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 20:22 |
Perhaps a review of the ERSB standard would be appropriate here: Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity. Rockstar's title had violence, prostitution, drugs, gangbanging. For those things it (apparently according to MITH) deserved only an "M" rating. However, hidden in the huge string of 0001110101010 was a sequence of 010101011110110101000 that you couldn't access from within the game itself. However, it turns out that third party software allows you to access those 010101101010's in a way that the game programmers chose to disable. And because those third party programs access those previously inaccessible 0101110101001010's in a way that shows cartoon characters simulating sex, and because those 010111010's can be modded (on the PC version) to be made explicit, the game deserves to get yanked off store shelves across the country so that, heaven forbid, games with an "M" on the cover won't be sold, and games with an "AO" will replace it. This silliness speaks for itself. | ||||||
| 436 | Boldwin ID: 47611911 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 20:55 |
Two of my four boys are game addicts. One fancies himself a game designer and in fact once had an invite from a game company to go down to Texas and design games. [The company went broke in the dot.com debacle instead] These guys eat sleep and breathe games and I have absorbed enuff from them to tell you that this easter egg was intended to be found and to please an audience. You can debate censorship till the cows come home but easter eggs is easter eggs, people. C'mon don't kid yourselves. | ||||||
| 437 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 25337239 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 20:56 |
A mod is made by a third party. Gaming companies (per my quote) have no control over their existence. I'm tired of your playing games. There is an explicit sex scene in the PS2 version of GTA. Its there because Rockstar allows it to be there. If that scene is the same thing as the "mod" that you are talking about, then your claim that the mod was put there by a 3rd party is simply wrong. If the mod you're talking about is some other thing, whatever it is, it's irrelevant. Without the Hillary inquiry, you think the game would be gone today? You're insane. Look, here's the ESRB rating guide. I'm sure you've seen it. In fact, you are on record as saying "I take no issue with that guide" MATUREWe know that there is graphic sexual content and nudity in the game. Ergo, the game deserves the rating that includes graphic sexual content and nudity under its heading. Instructions for things don't ever really get any more simple than that. Best Buy and other mainstream corporate chain stores that sell video games don't sell AO games. Still with me, right? My opinion is that I have seen no reason to thaink that ESRB is incompetant and I'm reasonably confident that they are fully dedicated to accurately rating video games - according to the system you endorse. But if you insist that the ESRB would not have acted if not for her prompting, then your only logical position can that ESRB is not competant and cannot be depended on to accurately carry out the importantant task they are trusted with. As much as I like Senator Clinton's actions here, I'm not quite ready to credit her with finally getting the game rated properly. But if you are right, hopefully the FTC study will reflect this and the ESRB will clean up their act and start applying the rating system - that you endorse - according to the way it is written. I blame the people who dug out the unintended code Even Rockstar hasn't claimed the code in PS2 was "unintended". Where'd you get that? the parents for unsupervising their kids No argument, but what can you do about that except for tryng to keep them as informed as possible? That's why ratings shoud be accurate. the retailers for not following the ESRB Flop. Then why do you argue that it is wrong to ask the FTC to take a look. Where have I ever flip flopped on my belief that parents are partly to blame for this? I'll give you he benefit of the doubt and assume you just misunderstand me. I was talking about the retailers. One minute you say we need to crack down on them. The next you say that looking into what practices are taking place and where and heavier fines for those who sell adult stuff to minors are bad ideas that lead to censorship. Then you tell me that you blame the retailers who sell the stuff to kids. Then you called ME insane. I'm 26, why can't I legally walk into Best Buy and buy this game? Because it has an accurately applied AO rating - according to the system you endorse - and Best Buy, a private business with ever right to sell or not sell whatever it wants, chooses not to sell AO rated games. | ||||||
| 438 | Madman ID: 114321413 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 21:00 |
I'm tired of your playing games. There is an explicit sex scene in the PS2 version of GTA. Its there because Rockstar allows it to be there. If that scene is the same thing as the "mod" that you are talking about, then your claim that the mod was put there by a 3rd party is simply wrong. Ok, MITH. You have GTA? Play it and get the sex scene. Prove it & do it without the use of a purchased 3rd party mod. | ||||||
| 439 | Madman ID: 114321413 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 21:02 |
As much as I like Senator Clinton's actions here, I'm not quite ready to credit her with finally getting the game rated properly. Dozens of other games have had similar mods done to them. Suddenly, within days of her appeal to the FTC, action was taken. Joy, joy. Feel free to give her credit. This is where the statist left meets the religious right in a harmonious desire to manipulate people's lives. | ||||||
| 440 | Tree ID: 31642120 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 21:12 |
it appears to me that what CCP and Madman are both saying is that if you lie, and hide the fact that there is explicit sex in your video game, it is perfectly acceptable, and there should be no reprecussions. the rating systems are there for a reason, and this wouldn't be an issue if rockstargames had been honest in the first place. yes, i do think that this is a very minor issue in light of the atrocities committed by Bush and his American Taliban, and it is taking away the current more important issue at hand involving Karl Rove, but hey, so be it. | ||||||
| 441 | Tree ID: 31642120 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 21:13 |
it appears to me that what CCP and Madman are both saying is that if you lie, and hide the fact that there is explicit sex in your video game, it is perfectly acceptable, and there should be no reprecussions. the rating systems are there for a reason, and this wouldn't be an issue if rockstargames had been honest in the first place. yes, i do think that this is a very minor issue in light of the atrocities committed by Bush and his American Taliban, and it is taking away the current more important issue at hand involving Karl Rove, but hey, so be it. | ||||||
| 442 | Madman ID: 114321413 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 21:45 |
Tree -- "Madman is saying that explicit sex in video games is there for a reason." No, no, no, no, that's not what I'm saying. And I'm holding you responsible for that, BTW. (note: the aforementioned quote was a "modded" version of post 441; my mod takes pre-existing words and re-arranges them in a way to provide entertainment in a way other than what was intended by the author.) | ||||||
| 443 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 25337239 Thu, Jul 21, 2005, 23:00 |
Maybe your right that it requires a gameshark to access it, but I keep reading reports that say things like:Since the PS2 version comes on an unmoddable DVD, it cannot have any content added to it, which means the code to the sexually explicit scene was, indeed, on the manufactured discs. Yes, it requires a lengthy cheat to unlock (or a mod to download), but it does seem as though Rockstar lied to Gamespot (or was very slick with its wording), and misled the ESRB.But assuming for the moment that you're right about the need for a gameshark to see it, what makes you think that it is the mod that makes the scene look like cartoon characters simulating sex or that makes it explicit? It seems much more likely that the scenes are produced by Rockstar as you see them, and the gameshark code simply unlocks them. Apparently the antihero has several dfferent girlfriends that he can have sex with. How do you know that some accessable scenes aren't just more explicit than others? The girl in your screenshot looked different from the one in tree's link. Further, there were various hot coffee codes, including 'hot coffee', 'uncensored hot coffee' and 'censored hot coffee". | ||||||
| 444 | Madman ID: 114321413 Fri, Jul 22, 2005, 00:29 |
MITH -- On the PS2, I suspect that your interpretation is correct; the code was on the disc and the mods give you access to it. I don't believe I have said anything different, at least not in the last 100 posts ;). But this sort of thing is in ALL software, whether you believe it or not. I assume you've flown the flight simulator in Excel? And that feature, of course, wasn't disabled. Forcing game producers to parse through all code fragments to make sure mods can't unlock them is crazy. There is a user agreement for a reason. However, the descriptions I've read of the PS2 "unlocked" simulated scenes are tamer than some of the newer "Hot Coffee" mods for the PC. Given independent knowledge of how PC mods come about and their history in other games and after seeing what my b-in-law did to his X-box (I shouldn't even call it that anymore), I see no reason to believe that Rockstar is responsible for the graphic content on PC-based mods. I would be shocked if GTA did NOT have nude-skin mods for the PC; that coupled with knowledge of the scene mod discussed here would explain all the known facts. I do not *know* what all the scenes in the PS2 look like, but it's the simplest story that explains an awful lot. At this time, I stand by my conclusions in 416. The point is that the code was most likely disabled, and seriously so. Perhaps this was an easter egg waiting to be exploited on purpose; dunno. Given other modding that happens on PC games like this, I don't exactly see the point or danger of it. If you are concerned about this sort of thing, buy PS2/Xbox games and don't let your kids play around with mods. Problem avoided (well, if you ignore the prostitution, gang-banging, etc., in the game already). Rating or not rating this particular game is irrelevant to the problem of modded games and kids being exposed to things via mods that some parents don't want their kids to be exposed to. | ||||||
| 445 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 25337239 Fri, Jul 22, 2005, 07:30 |
The nature of the hidden material is that it gets found and it gets dug out. I assume that the current ratings system has been in effect since before the San Andreas software went into production. Its clear to me that even the screenshot that you found warrants an AO rating and that Rockstar knew this as that material was being produced. But they put it in their game anyway. Its no different than if a DVD rated 'R' for violent content included an easter egg that unlocked an X rated scene. Your opinion seems to be that since you thnk that Rockstar's intent may have been to lock out access to the scene (despite their knowledge that locked scenes are always found and unlocked) they are absolved of responsibility for content that they produced and included in their game. My position is much simpler. Its AO material, that material is in the game, the game gets an AO rating. If this was a case where a 3rd party developed the scene, I'd rethink part of my position. But I find it very hard at this point to believe that Rockstar didn't furnish GTA with what should be an AO rated sex scene and intend for GTA players to find it. | ||||||
| 446 | Madman ID: 43410119 Fri, Jul 22, 2005, 09:15 |
MITH -- well, we seem to just disagree with the facts of the case as well as the appropriate ramifications. 1) Its no different than if a DVD rated 'R' for violent content included an easter egg that unlocked an X rated scene. You keep saying things like this, yet have provided absolutely ZERO evidence. A preferable analogy would be something like the old 386 intel chipset. They sold a version with and without a math co-processor, but BOTH versions actually had a math co-processor in them. The one they sold without a math co-processor basically had the co-processor disabled. If you were ingenious, maybe you could have gotten that co-processor to work by modding your chip. If, subsequently, your "modded" chip performed a calculation error, would Intel have been responsible? Surely not. (note: I think the disabling of the math co-processor may have been fatal, but I do not recall. This is a hypothetical.) In Rollercoaster Tycoon (the original) the author programmed in peep limits, ride limits, and had disabled rides that were not in the game (I may be thinking of an expansion pack, but again, I'm not arguing these details). If you go into that game -- like some did -- and it ends up fragging your regular game and ruining your saved files, was RCT responsible? Do we want a rating agency that judges a game not just on its content, but also on content that the game manufacturer has intentionally made unaccessible to regular players? If so, where does the line stop? How do you distinguish between modding that unlocks disabled code versus moding that connects code together in ways that were not intended at stage x of pre-production? Is Rockstar responsible not just for the explicit actions of their characters, but also of the addition of nude skins w/genitalia in the PC mods (if this is what they did)? Indeed, if the true objective is to protect minors, what possible difference does it make whether or not Rockstar had, at one time, considered including AO-only material? (and I am NOT conceding that the disabled PS2 material is "AO"; I don't know where in the rating fully clothed individuals gyrating together falls; I would certainly argue that such gaming is no worse than many other elements of GTA that only got an "M" rating) despite their knowledge that locked scenes are always found and unlocked Well, you certainly have advanced in your knowledge of modding, I can say that. I will have to plead ignorance here on the technical details of modern console gaming and hacks like Action Replay Max or Gameshark. Given how difficult it was to crack games back in the 1990s when I was a very casual amateur on the PC, I would question this assertion. Combing through a game used to take months or years, generally reserved for aficionados. Even then, I am certain that people back in the 90's didn't find "all" disabled portions of code, or even most. But I would be interested on someone who is involved with cracking today to see how accurate your perspective is. It is probably easier with console gaming today, and especially a series like GTA that is perhaps entirely built around a specific code engine. It would take a technical expert to ascertain just how difficult cracking the code unlocking the disabled scenes were. Regardless, I don't think it unreasonable to argue that modding gameplay like this takes an increased degree of sophistication, and I think all a game manufacturer should be responsible for is what their program makes access to regular users who obey their user agreements. And although since my time an above-ground 3rd party market of mods and hacks has popped up, making this very sophisticated gameplay available -- to unwary parents -- young kids who don't know jack about coding, I personally still have no problem separating the ramifications of the modded content from the original author's designs. Just like quoting someone out of content is the problem of the person doing the quoting rather than the person who was quoted. As an aside, for those parents out there confused as heck, the answer is simple. I would suggest NOT allowing your kids to buy these cheats and mod packages. First, it ruins gameplay (I'm "old school" this way, I guess); wait until the kid gets to high school or later before letting the kid set his own rules and design his own combo games (because, in reality, this is what you are doing when you rely on these sorts of mods). There is an added maturity level required to handle mods and the freedom to design your own rules; the temptation to cheat can undermine fair gameplay which may have an adverse effect on child development (or maybe not). Secondly, you never know what you will find in games. This is just one case in point. If you buy modding programs for your kids, you should realize what you are doing. Although the most basic argument here is, again, that the title of the game is Grand Theft Auto; even though the scenes in question were apparently made inaccessible to GTA players (without mods), the content of the entire game is clearly "mature" (what a misnomer). Kids and parents have to take responsibility. If you buy GTA AND mod software for a young kid, I really have zero sympathy for you. If you do all that ON THE PC and put your kid in a position where they play games like this unsupervised, then I think you should take a good, long hard look at yourself in the mirror. *However*, what good has the government done here? Absolutely zilch. What value-added (to the parent) does even an "M" rating have for a game like "GTA"? If a parent is stupid enough to expose their kids in the manner I described in the previous paragraph, then the rating isn't even a blip on their radar. The rating *change* based upon disabled content will simply increase the cost of future game development and infringe upon legit users, like what is happening today. And it will help Hillary win the hearts of the religious right ... or at least thaw them a bit more. What she and others are trying to do is to play on parents' fear of technology, and fear of a complicated world. Such a play on emotion and manipulation of ignorance should be viewed with the contempt that it deserves rather than praise. | ||||||
| 448 | Madman ID: 43410119 Fri, Jul 22, 2005, 09:30 |
ESRB Change its ratings Furthermore, the ESRB has changed its ratings standards. Game publishers will be required to submit for board review all relevant content on a disc, even that which is not intended to be accessed. The ESRB also calls on developers and publishers to "proactively protect their games from illegal modifications by third parties." Ugh. Also, I just ran across this clarification: July 9, Boston Globe Vance said that while the ESRB is investigating the issue, she's inclined to agree with Take 2's take -- that ''Hot Coffee'' is a mod, not an inherent feature of the game. ''He actually had to change underlying code," Vance said of Wildenborg. ''It's not a cheat. It's not an Easter egg." Of course, the ESRB has now changed its policy, as per the first link. | ||||||
| 449 | Madman ID: 43410119 Fri, Jul 22, 2005, 09:42 | BTW, if anyone can find actual ESRB news releases online, that would be a value-added post. Not unsurprisingly, a government-supported rating agency is making it very difficult to find out exactly why they are doing what they are doing. I'd prefer to read their actual press releases or findings rather than get it second-hand through news agencies. | ||||||
| 450 | Boldwin ID: 47611911 Fri, Jul 22, 2005, 12:14 |
Madman I'd ask you if you ever had any intention of writing a book, but that would be redundant. | ||||||
| 451 | biliruben Leader ID: 589301110 Fri, Jul 22, 2005, 13:00 |
Heh heh. "You are gazing into the pixels of moral decay" | ||||||
| 452 | Madman ID: 43410119 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 08:49 |
Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over I apologize for the copy/pasting, but I want to make sure I don't lose this. By Steven Johnson, Steven Johnson's "Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" was published by Riverhead Books in May. Dear Sen. Clinton: I'm writing to commend you for calling for a $90-million study on the effects of video games on children, and in particular the courageous stand you have taken in recent weeks against the notorious "Grand Theft Auto" series. I'd like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids — a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing. I'm talking, of course, about high school football. I know a congressional investigation into football won't play so well with those crucial swing voters, but it makes about as much sense as an investigation into the pressing issue that is Xbox and PlayStation 2. Your current concern is over explicit sex in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Yet there's not much to investigate, is there? It should get rated appropriately, and that's that. But there's more to your proposed study: You want to examine how video games shape children's values and cognitive development. Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft," "Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." And parents have to drag their kids away from the games to get them to do their algebra homework, but parents have been dragging kids away from whatever the kids were into since the dawn of civilization. So any sensible investigation into video games must ask the "compared to what" question. If the alternative to playing "Halo 2" is reading "The Portrait of a Lady," then of course "The Portrait of a Lady" is better for you. But it's not as though kids have been reading Henry James for 100 years and then suddenly dropped him for Pokemon. Another key question: Of all the games that kids play, which ones require the most mental exertion? Parents can play this at home: Try a few rounds of Monopoly or Go Fish with your kids, and see who wins. I suspect most families will find that it's a relatively even match. Then sit down and try to play "Halo 2" with the kids. You'll be lucky if you survive 10 minutes. The great secret of today's video games that has been lost in the moral panic over "Grand Theft Auto" is how difficult the games have become. That difficulty is not merely a question of hand-eye coordination; most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives. In short, precisely the sorts of skills that they're going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow. Consider this one fascinating trend among teenagers: They're spending less time watching professional sports and more time simulating those sports on Xbox or PlayStation. Now, which activity challenges the mind more — sitting around rooting for the Packers, or managing an entire football franchise through a season of "Madden 2005": calling plays, setting lineups, trading players and negotiating contracts? Which challenges the mind more — zoning out to the lives of fictional characters on a televised soap opera, or actively managing the lives of dozens of virtual characters in a game such as "The Sims"? On to the issue of aggression, and what causes it in kids, especially teenage boys. Congress should be interested in the facts: The last 10 years have seen the release of many popular violent games, including "Quake" and "Grand Theft Auto"; that period has also seen the most dramatic drop in violent crime in recent memory. According to Duke University's Child Well-Being Index, today's kids are less violent than kids have been at any time since the study began in 1975. Perhaps, Sen. Clinton, your investigation should explore the theory that violent games function as a safety valve, letting children explore their natural aggression without acting it out in the real world. Many juvenile crimes — such as the carjacking that is so central to "Grand Theft Auto" — are conventionally described as "thrill-seeking" crimes. Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since "Grand Theft Auto" came out. Isn't it conceivable that the would-be carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the street? Crime statistics are not the only sign that today's gaming generation is doing much better than the generation raised during the last cultural panic — over rock 'n' roll. Math SAT scores have never been higher; verbal scores have been climbing steadily for the last five years; nearly every indicator in the Department of Education study known as the Nation's Report Card is higher now than when the study was implemented in 1971. By almost every measure, the kids are all right. Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework either. | ||||||
| 453 | Razor ID: 36241218 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 08:55 | Is this a joke? | ||||||
| 454 | Razor ID: 36241218 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 09:16 | Actually, I did hear this gentleman speak on NPR a while back, and I agree with his contention that some things in pop culture today are more intellectually stimulating than their counterparts from even 15 years ago. Shows like the Simpsons draw on more literary and cultural references than a whole week's worth of television in the 60's. Shows like the the Sopranos are like one hour movies every week. Still, I've played three Grand Theft Autos, and it ain't raising SAT scores and it ain't responsible for a decrease in violent crime. I was intrigued and partially agreed with this guy's theory when I first heard it, but if his book is filled with as many specious arguments and leaps of logic as this letter, then I'm glad I haven't read it. | ||||||
| 455 | Madman ID: 43410119 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 10:14 |
Still, I've played three Grand Theft Autos, and it ain't raising SAT scores How can you be so sure? Remember, the comparison should be to what the children would otherwise do. Further, don't forget the motivation video games provide to (a) hacking, (b) acquiring and perfecting various skills, (c) to interact and affect artifical environments as opposed to passively observing. Video game experiences are surely as intense intellectually as, for example, playing the piano. They *may* not require the imagination of playing charades, but they almost certainly require just as much if not more cognitive development. Not to mention that games like charades simply aren't as exciting to kids, leading many to idle away their childhoods in a less intense manner. Further, boredom is surely one of the best predictors for mischevious violence and vandalism. And I'm not suggesting idle time for children is a bad thing overall, but the point at issue is the affect on intelligence and violence. A theory that the regimented and intellectually stimulating environments we provide for our children today enhances measured SAT scores does not seem superficially implausible to me. Personally speaking, I am quite certain that video games enhanced my intellectual development as a child. The exposure to the logic of coding, the difficulty of thinking as a machine "thinks" were signal events during my elementary school years. And the only reason I had any desire to pursue those things was that I was fascinated by video games and I wanted to "tweak" games that I had come to enjoy. As to violence, I wasn't inclined in that direction and so my intense exposure to violent video games had no noticeable affect ... if someone insisted on drawing a connection, I would then suggest that they helped with self-confidence and aggressiveness -- traits I needed help with at the time. | ||||||
| 456 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 41645259 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 11:10 |
Video game experiences are surely as intense intellectually as, for example, playing the piano. Is this really Madman writing this? The average young child who picks up a controller for the first time will probably need a few hours to pick up the skills necessary to have some success at the basic level of most games and maybe a year or two of avid play to attain the ability to pick up any game and master it in 5 or 10 or 20 hours. Aside from the fact that it takes the average musician much much longer to develope any comparable levels of skill, learning to play the piano effectively means learning to communicate in another language. If you insist that mastering video games is also an endeavor that can be likened to learning a language, the difference in "intelectual intensity" is quite stark. Basic arithmatic vs advanced trig, I'd suggest. Madman, I believe that like me, you are in your early 30s. I liked my home video game systems and also arcade games as a kid, too. I'm curious, which "intellectually intense" video games from your childhood "enhanced" your "intellectual development"? Really, I'm open to the idea that games can be designed to nurture problem-solving and other skills in young kids and that they might even be very effective under the right circumstances or in the right approach. But the idea that Grand Theft Auto and other games built primarily for explicit shock value are serving some greater good is just laughable to me. | ||||||
| 457 | Razor ID: 36241218 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 12:53 |
A theory that the regimented and intellectually stimulating environments we provide for our children today enhances measured SAT scores does not seem superficially implausible to me. It does to me. Like I said, I've played three Grand Theft Autos and whole lot of other games, and few, if any, had any appreciable impact on my ability to do algebra or trig. These games aren't the intellectually riveting games you and Johnson make them out to be. You may fool others who have never played them, but I've played and it's because GTA and others are devoid of real intellectual stimulation that they are fun. Americans aren't into doing intellectually stimulating things to relax, which should be evidence enough that GTA is not terribly intellectually stimulating. Johnson does have a point that GTA is far more intellectually stimulating than, say, the original Mario Brothers or Pitfall, but it's far less intellectually stimulating than learning to play the piano, soccer or chess. I find it comical that he tries to slip that argument by people, but it ain't working on people like me who have actually played GTA. GTA does require some thought - enough to make it interesting - but not a whole lot. In fact, I found the game boring after a while (as do a lot of intelligent people). There are video games that are intellectually stimulating. GTA is not one of them. The real fun in GTA is committing unthinkably heinous crimes and seeing how big and intricate the fictious world is. If you think kids are sitting around playing this games for hours on end and then strolling into the cafeteria on Saturday morning to ace the SAT, think again. Johnson seems to throw his hands in the air and say, "Well, if video games didn't cause SAT scores to go up, AND THEY DID GO UP, what did? If you can't answer that in ten seconds or less, it probably is the video games." Specious. That article is terrible. | ||||||
| 458 | Razor ID: 36241218 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 12:56 |
And hacking a game and playing a game are distinctly different things. I'd say 1 out of every 5,000 people actually hack the game. You won't see me argue that coding isn't intellectually stimulating, but that is certainly not the main intent of video games. If you want to talk about an intellectually stimulating game that kids are playing, talking Texas Hold 'Em. | ||||||
| 459 | Madman ID: 43410119 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:22 |
The average young child who picks up a controller for the first time will probably need a few hours to pick up the skills necessary to have some success at the basic level of most games and maybe a year or two of avid play to attain the ability to pick up any game and master it in 5 or 10 or 20 hours. I am convinced that the spatial abstraction abilities of the younger generations who grow up with Halo genre 3D engines will surpass the intuition of those of us who played Castle Wolfenstein as a teenager. I never did play very many death-match games, but by the early part of this decade, I realized that kids growing up today were being forced to integrate into their brains pattern recognition and spatial problem solving orders of magnitudes more sophisticated than what my generation had. This has significant ramifications not only for things like measured IQ, but also for dreaming up complicated spatial geometric proofs, solving engineering tasks, etc. If you insist that mastering video games is also an endeavor that can be likened to learning a language, the difference in "intelectual intensity" is quite stark. I didn't insist on this, you did. But I will go along with it. Computers "speak" binary, one of the most powerful languages on the planet. Having an *intuitive* understanding of the rigorous and unyielding logic of the language of computers is necessary to becoming an expert programmer. Playing video games instinctively provides many opportunities to learn that language. Discovering program bugs and developing workarounds within this framework is old-hat to experienced gamers but can require extremely high levels of skill and knowledge. I can't speak for GTA, but I haven't yet found a video game devoid of significant problem-solving opportunities on difficulty levels orders of magnitude different than playing the piano. I will yield the point that gaining complete and total mastery of any instrument requires an attenuated sensitivity to the nuances of music. However, I would also suggest that this is lost on 99% of kids learning to play the piano. Most go through life without even realizing the complex variations you can go through, just like most go through life without becoming a peek and poke programmer. As to my experiences with video games ... geez. There simply isn't enough room to detail the skills and rewards from my video game experiences. I will simply bullet point a TINY few ... a) Apple II programming ... had short text-based games in Basic that I typed in while in elementary school. Desire to tweak games taught me how to program. This moved onto Pascal, etc., later. b) Many classic adventure games utilized classical logic problems or IQ test-type questions, referenced Greek mythology, etc. Old classics like Ultima have now morphed into Zelda and other games, but the problem-solving / quest elements seem to remain. Indeed, this is what provides the challenge. c) baseball simulations. Exactly as discussed in the article linked, my exposure to baseball sims engaged my mind in a much more intense way than simply watching baseball games would have done. I became fascinated with statistics as a result. And it wasn't just the usual "averages" and so forth; because I had a baseball sim, I wanted to comb the history books and compile "optimal" teams. This meant quick pattern recognition in numbers, the ability to concentrate for ungodly periods of time on otherwise mundane and unrewarding tasks (this was before the days of downloadable encyclopedias ... today, a kid like me would develop database and spreadsheet skills at an absurdly early age ... these items repeat themselves today with Madden games and others of that ilk, not to mention the exposure to hacking and sophisticated programming skills that PC-based sims encourage). These sims were also my first experiences with what we could call "randomness" and the law of large numbers. I didn't have those names to put on those concepts then, but they were there nonetheless. The extreme difficulty that typical adults of older generations have with very basic concepts like that makes me wonder whether or not video games are helping develop entire generations of youth with deep intuitive understanding of concepts that previously could only be explained and passed on through very complicated abstract theory. d) On to college when I had my first exposure to 3D engines which I could tell taxed my short-term memory and spatial skills (esp. dogfight games). Hacking into games or at least their datafiles, learning computer networking, dealing with hardware and OS issues, etc. As a general rule, video games train kids on task completion, problem-solving, long-term concentration, and a whole host of eye-hand coordination skills. The intellectual challenges they can and do pose are on par or superior to what we have posed to any prior generation. When you stop and think about it, the fact that video gamers make better surgeons makes intuitive sense on a whole host of dimensions. And yes, I still think of dimensionality via constructs I developed working on video games many years ago. | ||||||
| 460 | Madman ID: 43410119 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:37 |
Razor 457 -- It does to me. Like I said, I've played three Grand Theft Autos and whole lot of other games, and few, if any, had any appreciable impact on my ability to do algebra or trig. These games aren't the intellectually riveting games you and Johnson make them out to be. The point at issue is the $90m study to analyze the effects of video games on children. His piece isn't about GTA. He's saying that kids are doing better than ever before, and one possible reason for this is the ever-increasing complexity of the video games and other intellectual stimulation that we are exposing them to. | ||||||
| 461 | hoops boy ID: 226162110 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 15:57 |
Madman, ISTM that the majority of your quality experiences that you credit to videogames have little to do with actually "playing" video games. For you video games were a gateway into other activites that actually were stimulating (hacking code for example), but the actual playing was not apparently not stimulating or you would have not delved into these other activites. Case in point... somewhere in my youth I got a copy of home run baseball for the atari 2600. That was the crappy baseball games with only three field players and... heres a screenshot . Anyway, playing this game was fun for a (short) while, but it quickly grew boring. To make it interesting, I ended up keeping track of a complete roster for my team computing all sorts of statistics like batting avg, slugging percentage, runs, rbi, etc.. allong with pitching stats (era, so, bb, etc...) and league standings for the rest of the "teams" in the "league". (Note for those who havent played it, the game accetually had no concept of any of this stuff, you basically played the same engine over and over, and it was up to me to decide which team i was playing in any given match) What's even more sad than that was I didnt own a computer, so i did this all on *paper*, in a spiral notebook. Now I am sure that this excerise of turning that crappy little game into a full fledge baseball game certainly was beneficial to me in a lot of ways, but the actual time spent playing the game probably didnt do much for me... heck at times I didnt even want to play, but would just to compile raw data to do the stats on. Of course now my son is 8 years old and of course he likes to play video games. I try to stick toward good problem solving games when I can, going for platformers like sly cooper, where everything isnt straight ahead just bashing opponents. I also try to stick with games that offer there own level of creativity, for example the Tony Hawk games have things like create your own skaters, your own boards, your own levels, and your own goals. Not only does this add replay value, but more importantly it is an avenue for creativity. I figure if he is making new tricks in Tony Hawk, thats probably better than watching yugioh on tv. I wouldnt feel this way about any game, but certainly some games seem ok. (though I still would rather have him reading a book I think... I did manage to coax him into reading the entire chronicles of narnia this past year, which was pretty cool) | ||||||
| 462 | Boldwin ID: 49626249 Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 08:10 |
Democrats Raise $80 Million to Fund 'Thinking' | ||||||
| 463 | Madman ID: 11359814 Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 13:54 |
hoops 461 -- Madman, ISTM that the majority of your quality experiences that you credit to videogames have little to do with actually "playing" video games. Perhaps. But the argument *against* video games has even less to do with actually "playing" the video games. Their argument is that violent video games encourages violent behaviors outside of gameplaying, that exposure to "adult" material will transform otherwise innocent 16 year olds into sex-crazed adolescents, etc. Feel free to disqualify arguments about indirect effects of video games on "real world" behavior, but do so by equally directing your disqualification to both sides. You will find the proponents of censorship without any remaining argument when you do so. And I support you in your described philosophy of video game monitoring/encouragement for your son. In none of the above argument did I suggest that a parent should knowingly push GTA onto a kid. My argument is directed toward (a) the cost of censorship, and (b) the lack of wisdom in spending $90m to study video game playing on development given the politically charged context. | ||||||
| 464 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 2824911 Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 14:41 |
that exposure to "adult" material will transform otherwise innocent 16 year olds into sex-crazed adolescents, etc. Please. Reasonable people who are wary of the effects of graphic games on youth are concerned that they can potentially be a strong factor which may lead to (or increase the liklihood of) delinquint behavior. Not, as you assert, that graphic games are a one way ticket to a career in prostitution or some other nonsense. And I resent you framing the issue as "the argument against video games". Its no more an argument against video games than 18-year minimum age requirements are arguments against voting or military service. | ||||||
| 465 | Madman ID: 114321413 Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 19:42 |
And probably one of the biggest complaints I've heard is about some of the video games, particularly Grand Theft Auto, which has so many demeaning messages about women and so encourages violent imagination and activities and it scares parents. I mean, if your child, and in the case of the video games, it's still predominantly boys, but you know, they're playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them, you know, that's kind of hard to digest and to figure out what to say, and even to understand how you can shield your particular child from a media environment where all their peers are doing this. And it is also now the case that more and more, parents are asking, not only do I wonder about the content and what that's doing to my child's emotional psychological development, but what's the process doing? ... Violent video games have similar effects. According to testimony by Craig Anderson before the Senate Commerce Committee in 2000, playing violent video games accounts for a 13 to 22% increase in teenagers' violent behavior. Now we know about 92% of children and teenagers play some form of video games. And we know that nine out of ten of the top selling video games contain violence. And so we know that left to their own devices, you have to keep upping the ante on violence because people do get desensitized and children are going to want more and more stimulation. And unfortunately in a free market like ours, what sells will become even more violent, and the companies will ratchet up the violence in order to increase ratings and sales figures. It is a little frustrating when we have this data that demonstrates there is a clear public health connection between exposure to violence and increased aggression that we have been as a society unable to come up with any adequate public health response. ................... That's an argument against video games, whether you like it or not. But I do appreciate your implied support of my position that hoopsboy was incorrect to disassociate the subsequent effects of video games when evaluating their possible positive effects. | ||||||
| 466 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 25337239 Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 20:05 |
That's an argument against video games, whether you like it or not. No it isn't. Its an argument about the effects of some games (specifically, graphic and violent ones) on some people (specifically, children). And ftr I never denied the potential for positive efects of games - and the italicized excerpts you pasted don't either. I'll even gladly concede that the most potentially harmful games could certainly have seperate positive effects on some or most players. But I don't see why you find it necessary to confuse the two issues. | ||||||
| 467 | Madman ID: 11359814 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 10:29 |
"What sells will become more violent" ... that isn't an argument against video games in general? I'll leave that one to the lurkers to decide. And ftr I never denied the potential for positive efects of games - and the italicized excerpts you pasted don't either. The italicized excerpt never even hints at the possibility that video games can have positive effects, MITH. Back to your drinking age analogy, there are arguments against drinking that support a minimum drinking age, and there are arguments about the drinking age, specifically. The first tend to argue that teenagers aren't responsible enough *yet*; those who argue the second argue that drinking is bad for you. Prohibitionists make the blanket arguments, just like Hillary Clinton is doing with video games. This is why various news outlets have properly characterized her attacks as being against violent video games ( just one example ). And, of course, since she argues that the free production and sale of video games naturally causes them to become increasingly violent, she successfully obliterates any distinction between violent video games and video games. Even if there are a few video games that are not violent, this is a temporary and exceptional phenomenon, just a blip on the road toward increasing violence, perhaps mirroring the argument that marijuana smoking is a precursor for deadlier drug habits. This is an "epidemic". Epidemics don't draw fine definitional distinctions; they are by definition wide-reaching, putting large populations at risk. | ||||||
| 468 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 25337239 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 10:58 |
Its unfortunate that you insist on labeling her a prohibitionist, since prohibition isn't her issue at all. Rather than deriving meaning from what people don't say, I suggest you look more wholly at what they do say: Gamecore: Games like Grand Theft Auto are exceedingly popular. Do you personally believe that video games have merit as art?And while I can't track down the quote at the moment, I know I've also come across Clinton explicitly stating that game makers should be free to produce whatever they want. And I'm pretty sure that that's exactly where the marriage between the left and the religious right on this issue comes to an end. | ||||||
| 469 | Madman ID: 11359814 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 14:52 |
"I know I've also come across Clinton explicitly stating that game makers should be free to produce whatever they want." Yeah, free to produce whatever they want, as long as they submit all code fragments to a certification agency and don't put the letter "M" on a box for a game with code fragments that would otherwise achieve the leve of "AO". Rather than deriving meaning from what people don't say, I suggest you look more wholly at what I said. Prohibitionists make the blanket arguments, just like Hillary Clinton is doing with video games. The very construction of that sentence implies that Hillary is NOT a prohibitionist, yet that is what you read. Whatever. What I said was that her statements in March -- 9 out of 10 leading games have violence, a free market requires violence to continue to be ratcheted up, etc. -- were attacks on video games in general. That would seem to be self-evident, when you lump 90% of the top selling games into a single category. Maybe her more recent quote that you found is an accurate judge of her character. It definitely contradicts speeches she made earlier this year (as per my previous quotations). Is she retracting? Is the transformation from "90% of the top selling" to "some" a classic rowback? Or is she schizophrenic from playing too many violent video games herself? Or is she just bending to political pressure? Which is the real Hillary? Regardless, you and she want to restrict freedoms. I see no advantage to a policy of submitting code fragments to a censoring board, even if that board only threatens commercial sanctioning rather than jail time. Not only does such a policy harm game development and consumers (via higher costs), it has also launched a direct hit on the entire modding community. Thank you, Hillary. And we should all remember that this is done to protect poor innocent and confused parents from accidentally letting their kid play a game called "Grand Theft Auto" despite its rating of "M". The words "personal responsibility" has apparently been thrown out of the Democratic party's lexicon. | ||||||
| 470 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 030792616 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 14:56 | Madman, I'm curious is you are in favor of abolishing movie ratings? | ||||||
| 471 | Madman ID: 11359814 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:29 |
PD -- to summarize my position, in order of outrage: 1) A game manufacturer should not be held responsible for what their product turns into when third parties get engaged with modifying their software, even if it is just changing a censoring flag variable. Any rating system based upon such criteria is a rating system that I believe to be misleading, since the rating should be tied solely to the product as it is shipped and as it would be expected to be experienced assuming that the buyer abided by the licensing agreement. Any such rating system is a system that I also cannot support because of its depressive effect on the creative public community of modders, in addition to the excessively expensive code modifications to fully deleted deactivated code segments. I want game manufacturers to concentrate on writing good code for the game as it is designed to be played, not ensuring that their deactived code accidentally violates a governing board's sensibilities. 2) All rating systems should be strictly advisory. This goes for games as well as movies. Although there is some evidence that rating systems have been created by the threat of coercive force, this is not necessarily the only way for rating systems to be put into place. Attaching criminal punishments to any rating system implementation is beyond the scope of the federal government's legitimate authority. If a local retailer sells a copy of the "Passion" to a 15 year old, they should not face federal prosecution. This is not an interstate commerce issue. | ||||||
| 472 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 030792616 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:36 |
I don't think the issue is the sale of "Passion"-like works but the sale of much harder (violent/sexual) works. I understand your stance about the federal involvement, but think you tend to blur your argument by insisting upon content advantages for the products, and (seemingly) inappropriate comparisons (GTA to "Passion" for instance). So, are you against barriers to access to R and X rated movies for 15-year olds, on DVDs or on the big screen? | ||||||
| 473 | Razor ID: 1477414 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:46 | So, Madman, if the Lion King DVD could be hacked to include hardcore porn between people, would you still claim that manufacturers should not be held responsible for what hackers do or does your argument stem from the belief that the sex in Hot Coffee is not that much worse from GTA itself? | ||||||
| 474 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 25337239 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:55 |
Prohibitionists make the blanket arguments, just like Hillary Clinton is doing with video games. All politicians make blanket statements. "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" Yeah right. When those on the left call conservatives out for making the same kind of statements, you mock the left for their egotistical sence of nuance. That some portions of an argument for helping parents more effectively keep graphic material out of kids' hands also happen to qualify for your standards for an "argument against video games" does not mean that she is arguing for prohibition. | ||||||
| 475 | Madman ID: 114321413 Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 18:24 |
Razor 473 -- No, I don't think Disney should be held liable if a Lion King hardcore porn sequence would be created. That would be a clear distortion of their original work, just as Hot Coffee's alteration of a censor variable was a clear distortion of GTA. MITH -- "Either you are with us or against us" was a prospective statement, meant to polarize the world into camps in order to facilitate the identification of those working against our interests. Hillary's argument stands in stark contrast not only because it specifies a peculiar percentage of top selling games, but she also suggests an evolutionary cause why such a result is inevitable. Here, I am mocking the left for their absurd statements. It has nothing to do with their inability to accurately describe nuance. does not mean that she is arguing for prohibition. We are running around in circles. Read what I have written, and please argue against my arguments. I never argued that she was arguing for prohibition. I was arguing that her arguments were those of prohibitionists. | ||||||
| 476 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 2824911 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 14:59 | Fine. President Bush's sloppy referenecs to any and all enemy combatants in the Middle East as "The Terrorists" is certainly a fitting analogy. I've never once heard you gripe about his shocking inability to distinguish between the varied groups that oppose us there. In fact, I'm quite sure that if pressed on the matter, you would find some reason to downplay the issue, despite your highly determned arguments from some years back regarding the importance of not diluting words like 'terrorist'. Given that, I'm not interested in your alarmist harping on some single point that Senator Clinton makes, which you claim could lead us down the path of prohibition. If it ever really comes to that, then I'll be on your side. | ||||||
| 477 | Razor ID: 36241218 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 16:22 |
Razor 473 -- No, I don't think Disney should be held liable if a Lion King hardcore porn sequence would be created. That would be a clear distortion of their original work, just as Hot Coffee's alteration of a censor variable was a clear distortion of GTA. A DVD is a finite amount of content on it. Taking hardcore pornography off of it, for example, should not be a difficult task. Leaving it on there in a "hidden" (in quotes for a reason) location is just inviting people to find it. I'd feel much better if manufacturers were forced to take the material off the discs entirely. I would not have a review board that looks at every DVD released. Rather, I'd just use large retroactive fines as a deterrent. In this case, I think the cost of prevention is too great. | ||||||
| 478 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 2824911 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 16:29 |
I'd feel much better if manufacturers were forced to take the material off the discs entirely. You lose me there, Razor. If Disney wants a hard porn scene in Lion King, they should have every right to put it there. That said, I don't think I'd be opposed to a fine for failing to disclose that content to the ratings board. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||