Stop playing BG, you naughty kids.
Beechmere
http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/kidscore/index.shtml
type in "Baldurs Gate", and press enter, you'll get an amusing
color-coded
"review" of our favourite game.
This site is run by Young Media Australia, the trading name of the
Australian Council for Children's Films and Television. I believe it a
private company that receives substantial funding from the Australian
Government, and in
return, advises them on censorship matters.
YMA last put their foot in their mouth by describing "Magic: The
Gathering as
a "more violent form of Pokemon". True.
Mufasa
news:a79cda29.01082...@posting.google.com...
Explain this to me. There are tons of "illegal/harmful"(???) things in BG,
but no sexual stuff(??????)? How the hell did they come up with these?
Geoffrey Brent
> If you point your browser at
> http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/kidscore/index.shtml
> type in "Baldurs Gate", and press enter, you'll get an amusing
> color-coded
> "review" of our favourite game.
>
> This site is run by Young Media Australia, the trading name of the
> Australian Council for Children's Films and Television.
You sure? From the URL, the site would appear to be run by the
'National Institute on Media and the Family', who according to their
own 'about' page are "a national resource for research, education and
information about the impact of media on children and families. Based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota..."
As far as I could see, nothing to suggest that they were Australian-
based. Young Media Australia have a separate website
http://www.youngmedia.org.au/ and while the two organisations
would seem to have a similar agenda there's no obvious sign that
the US group is run by the Australian group. (I'd be rather surprised
if it was, given that the US group has a larger and more elaborate
website, and that the US group has a much larger and probably more
conservative base upon which to draw.)
I think you might have your facts mixed up here.
Geoffrey Brent
Zlmndra
:)
Z
tamago...@NOSPAMhotmail.com
"Beechmere" <gcan...@hcf.com.au> wrote in message
news:a79cda29.01082...@posting.google.com...
Jason E. Hubred
Beechmere wrote in message ...
What's your beef with that website? I think it's a good idea. These games
aren't meant for little kids and that website is aimed at parents of young
kids. I certainly wouldn't let my child play games like Baldur's Gate when
he's that young. I would probably wait well into the "13-17" age range
before I considered it.
In any case, this is - as someone else already pointed out - an American
organization, not Australian. Also, they are not calling for "censorship"
of this game, but are supplying information to parents about things their
kids might be interested in. There's nothing wrong with that and we should
support it.
Jason E. Hubred
Mufasa wrote in message ...
Yes, there are "tons" of illegal/harmful acts portrayed in the game. (They
seem to be only talking about the original BG.) Let's see...
Assassination, thieving, murder, etc. And there is no sexual content in the
game. (Though there is some in BG2.)
I don't see a problem with this analysis (it's not really a review). All
this website is doing is supplying parents of young children with
information on the things their kids might be interested in. I personally
would not consider letting my child play a game like BG until he was well
into his teens and then only if he displays maturity and common sense about
the issues this website cites.
Mufasa
"Jason E. Hubred" <jehu...@maxminn.com> wrote in message
news:cauh7.231$q83.71...@news2.randori.com...
Ahh see I never played BG1, on 2. And as most everyone knows there's quite a
bit of sex in that game. As far as illegal/harmful, the first thought that
came to me for that description was more along the lines of drugs and what
not, which I don't remember seeing any refernces to in BG2.
Darryl Riser
news:Q0xh7.17258$Co6.5...@news02.optonline.net:
> Ahh see I never played BG1, on 2. And as most everyone knows there's
> quite a bit of sex in that game. As far as illegal/harmful, the first
> thought that came to me for that description was more along the lines
> of drugs and what not, which I don't remember seeing any refernces to
> in BG2.
Actually, it's quite possible to get drunk in both BG games and hookers are
*everywhere.* :> I'm surprised nobody's ever had to visit a cleric for
something they picked up in a tavern ...
Darryl
=================================================
"Only sweet-voiced birds are imprisoned.
Owls are not kept in cages."
=================================================
The Drakhan's Lair: http://drakhan.com
Gert-Jan Spoel
Jason E. Hubred <jehu...@maxminn.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
cauh7.231$q83.71...@news2.randori.com...
eleven just a couple of months ago. Personally I believe that are tons of
sex, violence, assassination, thieving, murdering and lying in real life. As
long as the children know that there is a real world in which they have to
behave and a virtual world in which they can go to the stars, drive cars and
kill anything moving.
The alternative is to trow away the books (did you ever read Edgar A. Poe,
Walter Scott, The Bible, they are all full of violence and all the other
sins), kick out the telly and films (even the film Bambi had its share of
violence, or Cinderella, The little mermaid and so on), games (no more cobs
and robbers, cowboy and redskin and so on) and even society as we know it.
I trust that in the long run they will be just like me. Like most boys I did
read magazines like Playboy/Hustler when I was young, even though they were
hardly available. Yet I grew up without raping anyone. Killed thousands with
Carmageddon yet never had any serious accident with my car.
Now it is computer games, earlier it was comic books or rock and roll.
Somehow during all those countless generations children were exposed to
terrible things (according to their parents at least) yet somehow most of us
still grew up as responsible adults. And the danger was either less or came
from different things my parents warned me about.
Most off all I think children are more flexible than any parent gives them
credit for. Fortunately, because how could one measure success if not by
knowing what defeat and failure is ?
--
I do not suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
Gert-Jan
Geoffrey Brent
> Ahh see I never played BG1, on 2. And as most everyone knows there's quite a
> bit of sex in that game. As far as illegal/harmful, the first thought that
> came to me for that description was more along the lines of drugs and what
> not, which I don't remember seeing any refernces to in BG2.
Back room of the Copper Coronet, 'Black Lotus', for starters.
Not to mention large amounts of alcohol, and potions that make
magic stuff happen if you drink them...
Geoffrey Brent
The Scribe
Jason E. Hubred
Gert-Jan Spoel wrote in message ...
>
>My children played BG 1 since it came out. The youngest reached the age of
>eleven just a couple of months ago.
I don't think I'd expose my child to it when he's that young. To each their
own, I guess.
>Personally I believe that are tons of
>sex, violence, assassination, thieving, murdering and lying in real life.
True, but most children aren't explicitly exposed to those things, even in a
"cartoony" way like BG games.
>As
>long as the children know that there is a real world in which they have to
>behave and a virtual world in which they can go to the stars, drive cars
and
>kill anything moving.
I personally think that's a bit of a cop out. Even if they absolutely,
100%, without a doubt KNOW it's fantasy, things can still affect them
(sometimes deeply and drastically).
>The alternative is to trow away the books (did you ever read Edgar A. Poe,
>Walter Scott, The Bible, they are all full of violence and all the other
>sins),
Oh, I know that. As a Christian myself, I know there are parts of the Bible
that I would not want my child to read in full until he is old enough.
(Which is why there are children's Bibles.) The same goes for other books.
>kick out the telly and films (even the film Bambi had its share of
>violence, or Cinderella, The little mermaid and so on), games (no more cobs
>and robbers, cowboy and redskin and so on) and even society as we know it.
And all these things are why websites like the one we are discussing are
needed. There are so many things out there as to make it nigh-prohibitive
for parents to know everything about all of them on their own. This website
is just a helping hand. Nothing more.
>I trust that in the long run they will be just like me. Like most boys I
did
>read magazines like Playboy/Hustler when I was young, even though they were
>hardly available. Yet I grew up without raping anyone. Killed thousands
with
>Carmageddon yet never had any serious accident with my car.
Unfortunately, some people are affected negatively by such things. You
can't judge everyone just on the basis that it didn't happen to you, and,
admittedly, I can't (and don't) judge everyone just because a minority of
people are affected negatively. That's not my point, however. The issue
here is making information available to parents that they wouldn't normally
have.
>Now it is computer games, earlier it was comic books or rock and roll.
>Somehow during all those countless generations children were exposed to
>terrible things (according to their parents at least) yet somehow most of
us
>still grew up as responsible adults. And the danger was either less or came
>from different things my parents warned me about.
True enough, but perhaps those people who didn't grow up as such would have
had a different outcome if their parents had known (and, in some unfortunate
cases, *cared*) about what they were being exposed to.
>Most off all I think children are more flexible than any parent gives them
>credit for.
Some children are, some aren't. Some are more mature, some are more
susceptible. The judgment as to what a child is ready for is up to the
parents. As a parent, I know that having as much information as possible
about something is extremely helpful. I can't read every book, watch every
movie or TV show, or play every game my child will. No one can. It's only
when a group of people pool their resources can something like that be
accomplished. That is what that website is about and I applaud them for
their efforts. They aren't calling for censorship of anything based on
their content. They are informing parents of what is in all those things
and are making a recommendation. (Even if the website creators explicitly
stated, "Never let your child within 10 miles of this," it would not be
censorship.) It's up to the parents to judge their child's mentality and to
make a final determination about that recommendation.
>Fortunately, because how could one measure success if not by
>knowing what defeat and failure is ?
I'm afraid I don't understand this point in relation to the rest of the
discussion.
Mufasa
news:3B86D360...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
There are drugs in the back of the Coronet? How'd I miss that? I know about
the Black Lotus, but thats a big obscure, I doubt many kids would pick up on
that. They'd probably think its a Magic the Gathering refernce. Alcohol and
potions aren't in the same league as drugs though. At the most basic, one is
legal and one isn't.
Geoffrey Brent
> > Back room of the Copper Coronet, 'Black Lotus', for starters.
> > Not to mention large amounts of alcohol, and potions that make
> > magic stuff happen if you drink them...
>
> There are drugs in the back of the Coronet? How'd I miss that? I know about
> the Black Lotus, but thats a big obscure, I doubt many kids would pick up on
> that. They'd probably think its a Magic the Gathering refernce.
Half a dozen people lounging around, IIRC making comments about
as subtle as "whoa, this Black Lotus is heavy stuff, man, have a toke..."
> Alcohol and
> potions aren't in the same league as drugs though. At the most basic, one is
> legal and one isn't.
Alcohol _is_ a drug, and for kids (which is what that rating was about)
it is not legal. Magic potions don't exist IRL, but drugs are the closest
real-world parallel - for "potion of heroism", sub "PCP", for instance.
Geoffrey Brent
Gert-Jan Spoel
>
> Gert-Jan Spoel wrote in message ...
> >
> >My children played BG 1 since it came out. The youngest reached the age
of
> >eleven just a couple of months ago.
>
> I don't think I'd expose my child to it when he's that young. To each
their
> own, I guess.
>
> >Personally I believe that are tons of
> >sex, violence, assassination, thieving, murdering and lying in real life.
>
> True, but most children aren't explicitly exposed to those things, even in
a
> "cartoony" way like BG games.
>
Sorry ? Even down in Europe we hear the stories. And see the cartoons, films
and tv. Like Tom & Jerry. Muppet Show, Chandra Levy, Rodney King (IIRC),
Reality TV. The list goes on and on. Not that we don't have our own share of
those stories, but most likely you haven't heard about them. I guess every
child is exposed and not only in a cartoony way.
> >As
> >long as the children know that there is a real world in which they have
to
> >behave and a virtual world in which they can go to the stars, drive cars
> and
> >kill anything moving.
>
> I personally think that's a bit of a cop out. Even if they absolutely,
> 100%, without a doubt KNOW it's fantasy, things can still affect them
> (sometimes deeply and drastically).
>
Throughout the ages children has known the difference between games and
reality. It sure affected them. But they knew the difference. Bambi had my
daughter crying but briefly and only once. Real life (or should I say dead
in this circumstance) affects them more. Yet you can not shelter them
against life.
> >The alternative is to trow away the books (did you ever read Edgar A.
Poe,
> >Walter Scott, The Bible, they are all full of violence and all the other
> >sins),
>
> Oh, I know that. As a Christian myself, I know there are parts of the
Bible
> that I would not want my child to read in full until he is old enough.
> (Which is why there are children's Bibles.) The same goes for other
books.
>
I know the Bible good enough to know that many adults should not read it.
However censorship was never a solution.
> >kick out the telly and films (even the film Bambi had its share of
> >violence, or Cinderella, The little mermaid and so on), games (no more
cobs
> >and robbers, cowboy and redskin and so on) and even society as we know
it.
>
> And all these things are why websites like the one we are discussing are
> needed. There are so many things out there as to make it nigh-prohibitive
> for parents to know everything about all of them on their own. This
website
> is just a helping hand. Nothing more.
>
That website only rates about all games as dangerous, with the exception of
sport simulation. As there is no list of criteria on the web-site you have
to trust on a organisation who has not a single hard fact against video
games, but just the assumption that it might be harmful, if it is in
conjunction with long exposure to both prime time television and/or MTV.
Spreading around half-non-truths is just as worse as telling whole
non-truths, although I personally like people to lie, that is discovered
more easy.
> >I trust that in the long run they will be just like me. Like most boys I
> did
> >read magazines like Playboy/Hustler when I was young, even though they
were
> >hardly available. Yet I grew up without raping anyone. Killed thousands
> with
> >Carmageddon yet never had any serious accident with my car.
>
> Unfortunately, some people are affected negatively by such things. You
> can't judge everyone just on the basis that it didn't happen to you, and,
> admittedly, I can't (and don't) judge everyone just because a minority of
> people are affected negatively.
You just restrict your children for it.
> That's not my point, however. The issue
> here is making information available to parents that they wouldn't
normally
> have.
>
If I could see the need for censorship (which I don't) then it would have
been on my own personal experience. I have seen too many times people
claiming to have real information which proved to be just propaganda.
Besides real information, with screenshots and all (computer games magazine,
game specific website) is easy to obtain. A few minutes browsing the web,
talking to storekeepers, even if they are not supporting the Christian point
of few will give you better idea about those games.
> >Now it is computer games, earlier it was comic books or rock and roll.
> >Somehow during all those countless generations children were exposed to
> >terrible things (according to their parents at least) yet somehow most of
> us
> >still grew up as responsible adults. And the danger was either less or
came
> >from different things my parents warned me about.
>
> True enough, but perhaps those people who didn't grow up as such would
have
> had a different outcome if their parents had known (and, in some
unfortunate
> cases, *cared*) about what they were being exposed to.
>
People do not become bad because of just one thing. They become bad due to a
whole bunch of things.
> >Most off all I think children are more flexible than any parent gives
them
> >credit for.
>
> Some children are, some aren't. Some are more mature, some are more
> susceptible. The judgment as to what a child is ready for is up to the
> parents. As a parent, I know that having as much information as possible
> about something is extremely helpful. I can't read every book, watch
every
> movie or TV show, or play every game my child will. No one can. It's
only
> when a group of people pool their resources can something like that be
> accomplished. That is what that website is about and I applaud them for
> their efforts.
If they publish their criteria and the reviewers, it might give you an idea
about the books and games. Now you have to judge what the real value is of
the judgement of someone unknown. If the game is featuring a girl in a jeans
and the reviewer thinks women should wear skirts only (as some hard-core
Christians in this country do) than such a game is labelled sexual
unacceptable while it doesn't have to be.
>They aren't calling for censorship of anything based on
> their content. They are informing parents of what is in all those things
> and are making a recommendation. (Even if the website creators explicitly
> stated, "Never let your child within 10 miles of this," it would not be
> censorship.) It's up to the parents to judge their child's mentality and
to
> make a final determination about that recommendation.
>
For making such determination you need facts. This site doesn't give you
facts.
> >Fortunately, because how could one measure success if not by
> >knowing what defeat and failure is ?
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand this point in relation to the rest of the
> discussion.
>
Let me refrase it : You can tell them the dogs bites, but still they only
accept it once they are bitten. Then they know the meaning of pain and
danger. Without experience it is just words, no meaning.
--
Gert-Jan
I am not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing
Gez Tobin
"The Scribe" <iNgOiS...@hoMme.com> wrote in message
news:3B87086B...@hoMme.com...
You can kill loads of people in BG. That's illegal in real life.
Speaker-to-Customers
"Gez Tobin" wrote ...
>
> You can kill loads of people in BG. That's illegal in real life.
>
Unless you're a government.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Beechmere
mentioned in the original message was not their own - it's an American
one. YMA don't have the resources to do their own evaluations - they
rely on the over-reactive vocal minorities of liberal middle American
do-gooders.
Like I said - they didn't know the difference between Magic The
Gathering and Pokemon, so why should we respect their opinions on
Baldurs Gate?
For the record, my 7 year old daughter sits with me while we play BG2,
and she
loves it. So far, she hasn't been arrested for any copy-cat crimes...
Geoffrey Brent
> Young Media Australia are based in Adelaide, SA, Australia. The URL I
> mentioned in the original message was not their own - it's an American
> one. YMA don't have the resources to do their own evaluations - they
> rely on the over-reactive vocal minorities of liberal middle American
> do-gooders.
OK, so where do YMA come into this at all? The only URL mentioned,
and the only review, were from the American site.
Geoffrey Brent
ElfBard
>Ahh see I never played BG1, on 2. And as most everyone knows there's quite
a
>bit of sex in that game. As far as illegal/harmful, the first thought that
>came to me for that description was more along the lines of drugs and what
>not, which I don't remember seeing any refernces to in BG2.
What, you think Anomen is the product of a rational mind? ;P
Jason E. Hubred
Gert-Jan Spoel wrote in message
>Jason E. Hubred <jehu...@maxminn.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
>WTDh7.25$Vo7.12...@news2.randori.com...
>>
>> Gert-Jan Spoel wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >My children played BG 1 since it came out. The youngest reached the age
>of
>> >eleven just a couple of months ago.
>>
>> I don't think I'd expose my child to it when he's that young. To each
>their
>> own, I guess.
>>
>> >Personally I believe that are tons of
>> >sex, violence, assassination, thieving, murdering and lying in real
life.
>>
>> True, but most children aren't explicitly exposed to those things, even
in
>a
>> "cartoony" way like BG games.
>>
>
>Sorry ? Even down in Europe we hear the stories. And see the cartoons,
films
>and tv. Like Tom & Jerry. Muppet Show, Chandra Levy, Rodney King (IIRC),
>Reality TV. The list goes on and on. Not that we don't have our own share
of
>those stories, but most likely you haven't heard about them. I guess every
>child is exposed and not only in a cartoony way.
Sorry. I meant "blood-n-guts" violence portrayed in a cartoony way, as BG
does. I'm sorry, but Tom and Jerry cartoons and the Muppet Show don't
contain any "blood-n-guts." Chandra Levy? I see no evidence of violence so
far in that case, and besides, I wouldn't think that too many kids are
following that story. Kids under 13 are rarely interested in the violence
we see reported on the news and I would hope their parents would prevent
them from seeing such disturbing things until they are mature enough to
understand and cope.
>> >As
>> >long as the children know that there is a real world in which they have
>to
>> >behave and a virtual world in which they can go to the stars, drive cars
>> and
>> >kill anything moving.
>>
>> I personally think that's a bit of a cop out. Even if they absolutely,
>> 100%, without a doubt KNOW it's fantasy, things can still affect them
>> (sometimes deeply and drastically).
>>
>
>Throughout the ages children has known the difference between games and
>reality.
Most children have.
>It sure affected them. But they knew the difference.
That is of little consequence. It still affected them whether or not they
knew the difference between fiction and reality. Much of the fiction in
today's movies and TV shows is quite realistic.
>Bambi had my
>daughter crying but briefly and only once. Real life (or should I say dead
>in this circumstance) affects them more. Yet you can not shelter them
>against life.
Sorry, but I think that's another convenient cop-out. You *can* shelter
them for a time, but you should also guide and prepare them for when you
cannot shelter them anymore. I would not let my child watch the evening
news and see the latest terrorist bombing victims lying in pools of their
own blood until I knew that he was mature enough. For the same reason, I
would not let my child play a violent video game or watch a violent movie
until he is mature enough.
>> >The alternative is to trow away the books (did you ever read Edgar A.
>Poe,
>> >Walter Scott, The Bible, they are all full of violence and all the other
>> >sins),
>>
>> Oh, I know that. As a Christian myself, I know there are parts of the
>Bible
>> that I would not want my child to read in full until he is old enough.
>> (Which is why there are children's Bibles.) The same goes for other
>books.
>>
>
>I know the Bible good enough to know that many adults should not read it.
Whatever that means. By saying that, you are also condemning every TV show
and movie that contains mature images and themes.
>However censorship was never a solution.
I agree, but this isn't about censorship at all. This is about parents
being able to decide what their kids should and should not see. Parents
have that right, but they cannot learn on their own about everything their
child may come into contact with. As I stated, websites like the one we are
discussing (I think we're still discussing it) help them.
>> >kick out the telly and films (even the film Bambi had its share of
>> >violence, or Cinderella, The little mermaid and so on), games (no more
>cobs
>> >and robbers, cowboy and redskin and so on) and even society as we know
>it.
>>
>> And all these things are why websites like the one we are discussing are
>> needed. There are so many things out there as to make it
nigh-prohibitive
>> for parents to know everything about all of them on their own. This
>website
>> is just a helping hand. Nothing more.
>>
>
>That website only rates about all games as dangerous, with the exception of
>sport simulation.
Don't go making broad generalizations based on a few games you've checked
out. In my own search, I have found several non-sports games that aren't
rated as dangerous. The fact that you stated that disturbs me when
considering what you say later about half- and whole-non-truths.
>As there is no list of criteria on the web-site you have
>to trust on a organisation who has not a single hard fact against video
>games,
Did you not see the links at the bottom of the page?
"About KidScore": http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/kidscore/info.shtml
and "How to use KidScore":
http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/kidscore/how.shtml
If those aren't "list[s] of criteria," then I don't know what is. And "hard
facts?" They state quite explicitly that games contain certain elements
(violence, sexual themes, etc.). Are those not "hard facts?"
>but just the assumption that it might be harmful,
True, because not all kids are the same. Some are more mature than others,
some are less mature. It's up to the parents to decide whether or not to
follow the recommendation (and that's all it is) of this website.
>if it is in
>conjunction with long exposure to both prime time television and/or MTV.
Where are you getting that from?
>Spreading around half-non-truths is just as worse as telling whole
>non-truths, although I personally like people to lie, that is discovered
>more easy.
I guess it would be appropriate to state that you should practice what you
preach, considering what you stated above.
>> >I trust that in the long run they will be just like me. Like most boys I
>> did
>> >read magazines like Playboy/Hustler when I was young, even though they
>were
>> >hardly available. Yet I grew up without raping anyone. Killed thousands
>> with
>> >Carmageddon yet never had any serious accident with my car.
>>
>> Unfortunately, some people are affected negatively by such things. You
>> can't judge everyone just on the basis that it didn't happen to you, and,
>> admittedly, I can't (and don't) judge everyone just because a minority of
>> people are affected negatively.
>
>You just restrict your children for it.
What? You think I should let my son do things like read Playboy and Hustler
or play ultra-violent video games whenever he wants to based just on YOUR
personal experience? What if he becomes curious about rape, torture,
pedophilism? Should I through caution to the wind and let him explore such
things because preventing him from doing so would "restrict" him? Please,
don't insult my intelligence. As a parent, it is *my* job - not your's - to
judge what is and what is not appropriate for my child. I know I cannot
learn about everything he may be exposed to on my own. I applaud websites
such as KidScore for helping me learn. They aren't telling me what to do.
I will read what they have to say and make my own decision. There is
nothing wrong with that. If you think that I'll be "restricting" my son,
too bad. That's my choice, not your's. It's my son, not your's.
>> That's not my point, however. The issue
>> here is making information available to parents that they wouldn't
>normally
>> have.
>>
>
>If I could see the need for censorship (which I don't)
Neither do I. No one is calling for censorship. The fact that you are
bringing it up frightens me. Is everything that you see as being in
disagreement with your own beliefs censorship to you?
>then it would have
>been on my own personal experience.
However, you cannot personally experience everything. No one can.
>I have seen too many times people
>claiming to have real information which proved to be just propaganda.
As have I. Many of them have used the guise of allowing children to be
"open-minded" and "un-restricted."
>Besides real information, with screenshots and all (computer games
magazine,
>game specific website) is easy to obtain.
True, but they are not representative of the entire game. There are
probably millions of screenshots in the entire playing of the game.
>A few minutes browsing the web,
>talking to storekeepers, even if they are not supporting the Christian
point
>of few will give you better idea about those games.
A somewhat valid point. Browsing the web and talking to storekeepers (who
are most likely going to say anything to sell the games) are not complete.
Does browsing the web give you an entire picture of the game? No. I doubt
that there is any webpage (or at least a MAJOR webpage) that mentions the BG
romance plot involving characters having sex. Do storekeepers play all the
games they sell? Again, no. Sure, you should learn everything you can and
these are valid things to do, but I would sooner trust the opinion of
someone who has actually played the game. The raters who work for KidScore
do this.
>> >Now it is computer games, earlier it was comic books or rock and roll.
>> >Somehow during all those countless generations children were exposed to
>> >terrible things (according to their parents at least) yet somehow most
of
>> us
>> >still grew up as responsible adults. And the danger was either less or
>came
>> >from different things my parents warned me about.
>>
>> True enough, but perhaps those people who didn't grow up as such would
>have
>> had a different outcome if their parents had known (and, in some
>unfortunate
>> cases, *cared*) about what they were being exposed to.
>>
>People do not become bad because of just one thing. They become bad due to
a
>whole bunch of things.
I never said the didn't.
>> >Most off all I think children are more flexible than any parent gives
>them
>> >credit for.
>>
>> Some children are, some aren't. Some are more mature, some are more
>> susceptible. The judgment as to what a child is ready for is up to the
>> parents. As a parent, I know that having as much information as possible
>> about something is extremely helpful. I can't read every book, watch
>every
>> movie or TV show, or play every game my child will. No one can. It's
>only
>> when a group of people pool their resources can something like that be
>> accomplished. That is what that website is about and I applaud them for
>> their efforts.
>
>If they publish their criteria and the reviewers, it might give you an idea
>about the books and games. Now you have to judge what the real value is of
>the judgement of someone unknown. If the game is featuring a girl in a
jeans
>and the reviewer thinks women should wear skirts only (as some hard-core
>Christians in this country do) than such a game is labelled sexual
>unacceptable while it doesn't have to be.
Do you read the myriad reviews of movies? Reviewers constantly say things
like "this is a must see film" or "don't waste your money." Do they publish
their criteria? It is the same thing with this website, though they have a
page with their criteria (which I mentioned above). It's just a
recommendation for parents to use.
>>They aren't calling for censorship of anything based on
>> their content. They are informing parents of what is in all those things
>> and are making a recommendation. (Even if the website creators
explicitly
>> stated, "Never let your child within 10 miles of this," it would not be
>> censorship.) It's up to the parents to judge their child's mentality and
>to
>> make a final determination about that recommendation.
>>
>
>For making such determination you need facts. This site doesn't give you
>facts.
Sure seems like it does to me:
Baldur's Gate: "Due to the level of violence as well as the portrayal of
illegal or harmful acts which may cause fear..."
Those are facts. The game does contain those things. Sure, they aren't
specific about every single thing in the game (which would be a vast
undertaking!), but they have a page explaining their criteria.
>> >Fortunately, because how could one measure success if not by
>> >knowing what defeat and failure is ?
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't understand this point in relation to the rest of the
>> discussion.
>>
>Let me refrase it : You can tell them the dogs bites, but still they only
>accept it once they are bitten. Then they know the meaning of pain and
>danger. Without experience it is just words, no meaning.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain stupid. Let me rephrase your rephrasing
and see what you think:
"You can tell them the shotgun will blow their heads off, but still they
only accept it once they are headless. Then they know the meaning of pain,
danger, and death. Without experience it is just words, no meaning."
That *is* what you are advocating, and I totally, 100%, and unequivocally
reject it.
Geoffrey Brent
"Jason E. Hubred" wrote:
>>However censorship was never a solution.
>
> I agree, but this isn't about censorship at all. This is about parents
> being able to decide what their kids should and should not see. Parents
> have that right, but they cannot learn on their own about everything their
> child may come into contact with. As I stated, websites like the one we are
> discussing (I think we're still discussing it) help them.
In theory, you are right; a ratings system provides information to allow
parents to make an informed decision, nothing more. They are free to
pay as much or as little attention to the ratings system as they like. This
is by no means censorship.
Unfortunately, in practice, ratings systems and censorship are often all
too closely intertwined. What begins as a 'voluntary' ratings system can
then magically be morphed into a 'generally accepted community standard',
and censorship instituted on that basis.
An example: the music industry. Under heavy pressure from a lobby led
by Ms. Gore, and threatened that they'd be forced to do so by legislation
if they didn't do so 'voluntarily', the Recording Industry Association of
America introduced what's become known as the "Tipper Sticker". You
know the one: "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics".
Now, nobody's ever been able to agree on just what might be considered
'explicit'. But that doesn't really matter, right? After all, it's a 'voluntary'
system, and if you don't agree with their definitions, it's a free country, you
just ignore the sticker (and hope it doesn't mess up the cover art), right?
Since the RIAA agreed to implement Tipper stickers, under the above
justification, several bills have been introduced at State & local levels
across the USA attempting to outlaw the sale of Tipper-stickered material
to minors. You can look for the details on http://theroc.org, see also
http://www.muse.ie/241100/thescope/audiosync.html; my previous
post had specific URLs for these bills, but I can't find them now :-( I'm
not sure what the status of these bills is, since the information I had on
them was quite old - I understand most failed, don't know if all did.
And that's how it can happen. A 'voluntary' ratings system is introduced -
whether it really is voluntary or whether people have to be leant on to
agree to it is another matter - and sold, on the basis that nobody has to
pay attention to it if they don't like it. And then, a couple of years down
the track, it's converted into a legal standard for what you are and aren't
allowed to sell.
I appreciate that a lot of people who favour ratings systems genuinely do
want them for purely informational purposes, and have no intention of
taking them any further. Unfortunately, there are many more who _do_
want to impose censorship laws, and are quite happy to use ratings systems
as the first step towards that.
Then the other problem: most ratings systems are too simplistic to be of
any use. Tipper stickers are among the worst examples - Frank Zappa's
"Jazz from Hell", which is an INSTRUMENTAL album with no lyrics
whatsoever, carries a Tipper-sticker, while various AC/DC albums heavily
laced with obvious innuendo do not. But anything that simply categorizes
material into "harmful" and "safe", or works on simple age brackets, is too
simplistic to be of any real use.
Partly because those decisions are made on the basis of two major factors
(sex and violence) as well as many lesser factors (drugs, language, religion,
etc etc) and no two people agree on just how important each of those factors
is, or how to measure them. Even within one of those factors, standards vary.
For instance, if I were rating movies for violence, 'The Matrix' would be a long
way ahead of 'Braindead' (instead of the other way around, as every national
ratings system does.) Graphically, 'Braindead' is far more gruesome, with blood
fountaining all over the place, but the plot of 'The Matrix' is close enough
to a textbook paranoid-schizophrenic fantasy that I see more risk of people
identifying with & imitating it. So when someone rates 'Matrix' for 15+ and
'Braindead' for 18+ audiences, that information is worse than useless to me in
making _my_ decision.
> A somewhat valid point. Browsing the web and talking to storekeepers (who
> are most likely going to say anything to sell the games) are not complete.
Depends where you shop. I've found that storekeepers - those who know
their products, at least - will usually be honest. If they lie to sell me a
product,
they won't have my repeat business; I might even insist upon a refund. If they
establish a good relationship with me, I'll come back, and they'll get far more
custom from me in the long run.
> Does browsing the web give you an entire picture of the game? No. I doubt
> that there is any webpage (or at least a MAJOR webpage) that mentions the BG
> romance plot involving characters having sex. Do storekeepers play all the
> games they sell? Again, no. Sure, you should learn everything you can and
> these are valid things to do, but I would sooner trust the opinion of
> someone who has actually played the game. The raters who work for KidScore
> do this.
JOC, how do the KidScore raters ensure that they've actually found all
possible instances of 'harmful' material in a game? It would be quite easy
to play through BGII without being offered one of the romances; several
posters on this newsgroup have had trouble getting Jaheira/Anomen
romances to work even when they knew such a thing was possible, and
if you're playing a female character who doesn't recruit Anomen that rules
out romance straight off.
Geoffrey Brent
freshie
>Young Media Australia are based in Adelaide, SA, Australia. The URL I
>mentioned in the original message was not their own - it's an American
>one. YMA don't have the resources to do their own evaluations - they
>rely on the over-reactive vocal minorities of liberal middle American
>do-gooders.
>
>Like I said - they didn't know the difference between Magic The
>Gathering and Pokemon, so why should we respect their opinions on
>Baldurs Gate?
Because it was a fair evaluation of the game, and it's content, that
may not be real suitable for younger players? Other than that they
probably missed some obvious sexual content in the game.
> For the record, my 7 year old daughter sits with me while we play BG2,
> and she
> loves it. So far, she hasn't been arrested for any copy-cat crimes...
Well choose to accept and or ignore the suggestions of others. That's
your perrogative. The fact that you are sitting there with her, is
likely a healthy influence, much more than tthe game would be an
unhealthy influence.
Gert-Jan Spoel
> Please,
> don't insult my intelligence. As a parent, it is *my* job - not your's -
to
> judge what is and what is not appropriate for my child.
I never had the intention to tell you what to do. If you consider my
comments as an insult to your intellect then please do not read them.
I am not going to comment such remarks. This discussion is closed for all I
care.
Gert-Jan
Funseeker
harmful to children"...
(although not quite in those words...)
In an attempt to pull this topic a tad closer to the group in question; any
specific examples?
All I can recall are vague references kids for whom watching or reading
about sex would be "harmful" would not understand at all...
all three (female) romances speakes of the act once before/once
after(Viconia once more, I think, giving the PC the chance to "teach" her
something "new"...to NOT have sex), referring to it in almost Elfquest'ian
wording..."joining", "laying with", and so on...I realize a prostitute or
two probably had the odd Direct Word, but I honestly don't think so...
My point?
That any child old enough to read(thereby able to play the game alone) will
have little problem with most of it, I think...(not forgettting the need for
a RL/Game separation...)
*But, with the notion that you folks probably are talking about generally
younger folk, I'll leave with these tired words...*
Personally, I believe that kids at that stage would(in these parts at least)
be well aware of the difference, (the birdseye view probably being a strong
factor in establishing that in the game<g>) And probably be more interested
in playing the game itself than what mental intricacies it may try to show
off(the discovery of Khalid and Jaheira's reaction, for instance)
A Funseeker still curious about the specifics of BG2's supposedly "explicit"
sex-content....?
djarvinen
> A Funseeker still curious about the specifics of BG2's supposedly "explicit"
> sex-content....?
And what about that scene in BG1 when you enter the city for the first
time? The little boy who practically molests that little girl in
broad daylight on city streets!
And the Flaming Fists? Give me a break; if I want homosexuality in my
games, I'll ask for it!
And the streets and alleys filled with strumpets and courtesans
blatantly displaying their wares.
Hmmph!
I propose that Black Isle tone down their games by doing the
following:
1. No more fights with 'real' weapons; all characters are limited to
pillows and/or water balloons.
2. All females can have a cup size no larger than 32B. That should
solve lots of problems.
3. The only children displayed must either be mowing the lawn, taking
out the garbage or studying.
4. Language - big problem here. If you cut out four-letter words,
must NPCs won't be able to say much and most players won't understand
the big words. Nonetheless, pejoratives and expletives will be
limited to: "Gosh, that really hurt when you dropped that 45 pound
hammer on my big toe! Please be more careful." and "Golly, that is a
really big dragon!"
Please feel free to add any suggestions you see fit. Together we can
bring about a kinder, gentler Baldur's Gate.
Barbarian X
"djarvinen" <jarv...@proaxis.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:4c6b7a6a.01091...@posting.google.com...
> "Funseeker" <jo...@online.no> wrote in message news:
>
> > A Funseeker still curious about the specifics of BG2's supposedly
"explicit"
> > sex-content....?
>
> And what about that scene in BG1 when you enter the city for the first
> time? The little boy who practically molests that little girl in
> broad daylight on city streets!
>
> And the Flaming Fists? Give me a break; if I want homosexuality in my
> games, I'll ask for it!
>
> And the streets and alleys filled with strumpets and courtesans
> blatantly displaying their wares.
>
> Hmmph!
>
> I propose that Black Isle tone down their games by doing the
> following:
> 1. No more fights with 'real' weapons; all characters are limited to
> pillows and/or water balloons.
>
> 2. All females can have a cup size no larger than 32B. That should
> solve lots of problems.
Also, remember that at least once in every chapter of the game a female NPC
will state (To the Player, not the PC), that it's okay to look the way you
look, and everybody are normal.
(Of course, all women saying that will be extremely beautiful with loads of
makeup, because they are worth it, afterall...)
> 3. The only children displayed must either be mowing the lawn, taking
> out the garbage or studying.
Or eating nutricious food. and hamburgers, since we got this sponsor
contract with McBhaal Inc.
The contract clearly states that if more than 3 kids are shown in the same
scene they must all dance and sing the official McBhaal Inc.theme. (Slightly
disguised as a medieval song)
>
> 4. Language - big problem here. If you cut out four-letter words,
> must NPCs won't be able to say much and most players won't understand
> the big words. Nonetheless, pejoratives and expletives will be
> limited to: "Gosh, that really hurt when you dropped that 45 pound
> hammer on my big toe! Please be more careful." and "Golly, that is a
> really big dragon!"
It's not "Dragon", It's "Vertically and horizontally challenged lizard".
(Or, more correctly "MR / MS / MRS Vertically and horizontally challenged
lizard")
> Please feel free to add any suggestions you see fit. Together we can
> bring about a kinder, gentler Baldur's Gate.
Remember to remove the skull in the symbol of Bhaal. A teletubby head would
be frightening enough.
/S
m...@tadyatam.invalid
>
> "djarvinen" <jarv...@proaxis.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:4c6b7a6a.01091...@posting.google.com...
> > 3. The only children displayed must either be mowing the lawn, taking
> > out the garbage or studying.
>
> Or eating nutricious food. and hamburgers, since we got this sponsor
> contract with McBhaal Inc.
> The contract clearly states that if more than 3 kids are shown in the same
> scene they must all dance and sing the official McBhaal Inc.theme. (Slightly
> disguised as a medieval song)
>
> >
> /S
Perhaps some of that is in BG1 already -- notice the arrangement
of towels to form a shape quite similar to that of McBhaal's
"Golden Arches." ;)
--J
Replies to: jNpolak(at)Ojuno(dot)Tcom
Clariana
djarvinen wrote:
>
>
> Please feel free to add any suggestions you see fit. Together we can
> bring about a kinder, gentler Baldur's Gate.
My suggestion is that in the phrase "Hi sexy would you like to see my
diddy?", bandied about in the Mermaid's undercellar, the word "diddy" be
replaced by "doo-da" or "needlework". I am certain that this would make
all the difference.
Clariana
Redball
with it.I think there should be more of the stuff
redball
"Funseeker" <jo...@online.no> wrote in message
news:o8oo7.16635$1T5.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
Henry Shevlin
> 4. Language - big problem here. If you cut out four-letter words,
> must NPCs won't be able to say much and most players won't understand
> the big words. Nonetheless, pejoratives and expletives will be
> limited to: "Gosh, that really hurt when you dropped that 45 pound
> hammer on my big toe! Please be more careful." and "Golly, that is a
> really big dragon!"
This sounds EXACTLY like Aerie, to me.