Videogame violence is bad *how*?
Charles Doane
violence by the censorious Senator, the "conscience" of the Senate, the
VP-wanna-be Joe Lieberman, and I have to wonder, what in the heck is
wrong with "videogame violence"? Why is it "bad"?
My take on videogames (I've been playing them for about 23 years) is
that they are imaginary. I know that I never lost a planet because I
couldn't save everyone in "Defender". I knew that I was playing a game.
The so-called "violence" is only distressing to people who would
believe in the reality thereof, and that really ought to be no one.
It's a GAME, folks.
Chess is an imaginary game of WAR, replete with ranks.
Checkers is an imaginary battlefield of advancements.
Videogame violence is not real violence. It's not even close to it,
if it were then anyone who popped a token into an SNK or CAPCOM
fighter would be liable for assault charges. They aren't.
The reason people play those games is for simple fun.
Lieberman's (and Hillary's) problem, imho, is that they don't have
any imagination. They aren't capable of the suspension of disbelief
that makes games fun. They see violence in a videogame, and they'll
call it an assault, murder, and other unspeakable horror. It's all
make-believe, however, and it's not real. They're tilting at
windmills, just like Don Quixote. They're fighting a giant which
isn't hurting anyone and which has no interest in fighting back.
The target is attractive for rhetoric, of course, because of the
common misperception that voters don't play videogames. This
nation *still* believes that videogames are a childhood pastime,
and since since politicians need to attack something to win,
these folks are attacking videogames. WHY? I believe it's for
simple expediency. They can look like they're "doing something"
and they think the only price to pay is the non-existent child
vote. They're wrong.
Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
the temptation.
Before videogames, there were sports. If you want to see
violence, then wrestling, boxing, football and even the
schoolgame classic *Dodgeball* are a lot more injury-prone,
violent, and cause more hard feelings than videogames do.
Before videogames, there were cartoons. Elmer Fudd marched
around with a shotgun "hunting Wabbit". Popeye ate spinach
to kick Bluto's ass. Wile E. Coyote wanted a taste of a
Roadrunner's meat.
Before videogames, there were Westerns. The Lone Ranger
used a Silver Bullet as a trademark, because it was the most
accurate sort of bullet (not true, but it sounded cool).
Roy Rogers carried a gun and rode a horse, keeping the bad
guys at bay. John Wayne captured the imagination of America
when he challenged the bad guys; "Fill your hands, you sons of
bitches!" as he rode into a gunfight with twin Winchester
Model 94 30-30's in each hand. That was PURE Hollywood, a
Winchester Model 94 30-30 would nearly break your wrist
shooting it like that. That's a *very* serious gun.
Besides that, there were the wars. There was the revolution,
the Civil war Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American war,
two World wars, Korea, Vietnam, and countless others.
People *need* to fight. The most harmless way is on a video
display. Why oppose fighting there, on a digital, imaginary,
harmless battlefield rather than using REAL violence? I fully
believe that violence is necessary, healthy, and needs an
outlet because it is a fundamental part of the human experience.
Hillary, Joe, don't take away my games. You wouldn't like me
if you took away my games. I'd get angry. You wouldn't like
me when I'm angry. HULK SMASH!!
--
Novus ordo seclorum (Latin)- "A new cycle of the ages"
Motto on the reverse of the Great Seal of the
United States of America.
Phasm Ranger
>
>People *need* to fight. The most harmless way is on a video
>display. Why oppose fighting there, on a digital, imaginary,
>harmless battlefield rather than using REAL violence?
Exactly. To butcher an old movie line, "The lives of fictional
characters don't amount to a hill of beans." Who cares what
cartoon, videogame, or movie characters do? They aren't real
people. Their actions don't affect the real world. If Billary
or Lieberman or anyone else really wants to help society then
they need to stand up against REAL violence in the REAL world
and forget about what's going on in some fantasy realm.
>I fully believe that violence is necessary, healthy, and
>needs an outlet because it is a fundamental part of the
>human experience.
You'd think Clinton would be able to relate to that. He sure
seemed to need an outlet (or 2 or 3 or 4...) for his sexual
urges.
>Hillary, Joe, don't take away my games. You wouldn't like me
>if you took away my games. I'd get angry. You wouldn't like
>me when I'm angry. HULK SMASH!!
Actually, it wouldn't just be you. Think about it. You take
away a kid's or young adult's means of entertaining or occupying
themselves then you're possibly setting yourself up for
trouble. If they lose their favorite pasttime, a lot of them
are going to resort to other means to entertain themselves.
Not all of these means will be as benign as playing a video
game.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
IRON56
Y'all don't trip. Nobody is taking away your videogames.
Mïkê˜
[snip]
> people. Their actions don't affect the real world. If Billary
> or Lieberman or anyone else really wants to help society then
> they need to stand up against REAL violence in the REAL world
> and forget about what's going on in some fantasy realm.
Exactly! Straight to the point.
[snip]
> trouble. If they lose their favorite pasttime, a lot of them
> are going to resort to other means to entertain themselves.
> Not all of these means will be as benign as playing a video
> game.
Another fine point.
The way I see it, as it stands now we have ratings on movies and games.
It is parental responsibility to make sure you don't take your kids
rated R or X or XXX movies. Common sense. My wife and I went to an R
rated show last weekend and the place was filled with kids of all ages
watching some of the most violent and explicit content I have seen in a
while. Do I want MY children in there? NO! Do we want the government in
there? NO! The Ratings are ONLY useful as indicators of content and
should not be taken as a governmental control over its people.
We cannot let the government control what we watch, play, do, smell, eat
or whatever in the privacy of our own homes! Don't even get me started
on the idea of putting an extreemly religious person in office of a
country that is supposed to have seperation of Church and State!!!
--
These views are mine alone. Not my employer's,nor the voices in my head.
Jerry
on.
However, it is no more a problem than anything else in our society. What
creates a "monster" is not one thing, but a combination of things. Thus,
the violence in video games is just one of the ingredients to a bad recipe.
The child that comes home to an empty household, where there's no one to be
a role model, or even know what that child is doing, who their friends are,
or who they are for that matter. The lose gun laws in this country make
handguns and rifles readily available. Ads on TV for alcohol consumption.
Loose morals where even the President of the U.S. sets a bad example.
Violence in almost all TV shows, except those that have either bad language
or sexual themes.
All of these things are not good, yet the government would like to point at
one and say "see, there is the problem, we will pass laws and eliminate the
problem - vote for us".
It is sickening...especially the media where they act like they are just
reporting the news, when infact they are sensationalizing and creating
their own news. The media wonders why high-school shootings are happening
all the time, yet they are the first ones there in their vans to catch the
breaking news and show the blood splattered hallways. How incredibly
insane!
gdo...@primenet.com (Charles Doane) wrote in
<39993A6C...@primenet.com>:
>People *need* to fight. The most harmless way is on a video
>display. Why oppose fighting there, on a digital, imaginary,
>harmless battlefield rather than using REAL violence? I fully
>believe that violence is necessary, healthy, and needs an
>outlet because it is a fundamental part of the human experience.
>
David Matthew Wood
<miguel...@sw.boeing.com> wrote:
To add to this:
Look at the stuff they've got in Japan. Far more violent then what
we've got here, and yet our crime rate is way higher. That's just proof
that the majority of crimes are not "caused by" the media in the first
place! If parrents would just wise up and talk to their kids about what
is good and what is not, this wouldn't even be an issue. Why should the
government have to worry about this anyway, and end up ruining it for
everyone else?
Oh BTW in case you haven't noticed, a lot of Warner Bros. cartoons now
have scenes cut from them because of this. Remember "Daffy and
Egghead"? It's one of them!
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!
El Cid de Rameno
> I just listened to our First Lady praising efforts against videogame
> violence by the censorious Senator, the "conscience" of the Senate, the
> VP-wanna-be Joe Lieberman, and I have to wonder, what in the heck is
> wrong with "videogame violence"? Why is it "bad"?
It apparently gives children a tendency to be killers. Though considering
A) I've played video games of varying violence for most of my life, though
less now, and b) I also used to play "War" with everyone int he neighborhood
almost daily and this was in a time when Plastic toy guns ACTUALLY LOOKED
like real guns not these multicolored things or all western things they have
now. I had some sweet shotguns and machine guns, and a plethora of pistols.
Anyway, the point is, after doing all this I should apparently have been on
weekly killing sprees or something. Or THE POLITICIANS ARE WRONG.
> It's a GAME, folks.
Children are getting increasingly dumb anymore. apparently they are so
shielded from the truths of the real world some of them are unable to grasp
that some things are fake when they see them.
> Chess is an imaginary game of WAR, replete with ranks.
> Checkers is an imaginary battlefield of advancements.
People don't EVER complain about "classics". This goes for all medium,
movies, books, games, ect. If it was created by the generation complaining
(not necessarily created, but you get the idea I hope, I guess what I'm
looking for here s not 'created by' but 'played by') then it must be good.
> Videogame violence is not real violence. It's not even close to it,
> if it were then anyone who popped a token into an SNK or CAPCOM
> fighter would be liable for assault charges. They aren't.
> The reason people play those games is for simple fun.
According the those in chargee people play these games to learn martial arts
training. I'd like to see one person who "knows martial arts" try to take
on someone who REALLY knows martial arts. Even an amateur who really knows
the stuff.
> Lieberman's (and Hillary's) problem, imho, is that they don't have
> any imagination. They aren't capable of the suspension of disbelief
> that makes games fun. They see violence in a videogame, and they'll
> call it an assault, murder, and other unspeakable horror. It's all
> make-believe, however, and it's not real. They're tilting at
> windmills, just like Don Quixote. They're fighting a giant which
> isn't hurting anyone and which has no interest in fighting back.
No, all the politicians see is an easy out, a scapegoat. You see, most
(American) peoples are pretty dumb (at least the ones that tend to be the
most vocal (READ: VOTERS)). They want the government to tell them why their
children are brats, or go on killing sprees. They dont' want to accept that
BOTH PARENTS CANNOT WORK A JOB WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE BABYSAT BY THE
TELEVISION. People need to take car of thier children more, they need ot
actually raise them. Too many people have children fo rthe sake of having
children, they think it's their birth purpose to pass on their genes, so
they have children. The government gives tax breaks for children, so the
poor, have more children. They don't realize the reason for th etax break
is that it TAKES MONEY OT RAISE CHILDREN. The purpose is to help have more
money to raise the children. Chances are the tax break isn't going to be
less than the overall cost needed to raise the child. I could go on, but
basically the problem boils down to the parents, adn the government
officials know they can't tell people "You are the reason your children are
ignorant and bratty", that isn't good for elections!
Basically I blame liberalist women of the 60s for wanting to work, since it
only lead to inflation, not more money, and the government, for being run by
the "almighty election" more than being run by "what's good for the people"
> The target is attractive for rhetoric, of course, because of the
> common misperception that voters don't play videogames. This
> nation *still* believes that videogames are a childhood pastime,
> and since since politicians need to attack something to win,
> these folks are attacking videogames. WHY? I believe it's for
> simple expediency. They can look like they're "doing something"
> and they think the only price to pay is the non-existent child
> vote. They're wrong.
Yes, they are getting more and more wrong as people like yourself and myself
who have been playing games since we were 5 and are now part of the voting
populace.
> Before videogames, there were sports. If you want to see
> violence, then wrestling, boxing, football and even the
> schoolgame classic *Dodgeball* are a lot more injury-prone,
> violent, and cause more hard feelings than videogames do.
Yes, being actually hurt by others doesn't "build character" it builds hate.
> Before videogames, there were Westerns. The Lone Ranger
> used a Silver Bullet as a trademark, because it was the most
> accurate sort of bullet (not true, but it sounded cool).
> Roy Rogers carried a gun and rode a horse, keeping the bad
> guys at bay. John Wayne captured the imagination of America
> when he challenged the bad guys; "Fill your hands, you sons of
> bitches!" as he rode into a gunfight with twin Winchester
> Model 94 30-30's in each hand. That was PURE Hollywood, a
> Winchester Model 94 30-30 would nearly break your wrist
> shooting it like that. That's a *very* serious gun.
But cowboys are "good" and "space marines who kill aliens" are bad. Even
though they both use shotguns.
> People *need* to fight. The most harmless way is on a video
> display. Why oppose fighting there, on a digital, imaginary,
> harmless battlefield rather than using REAL violence? I fully
> believe that violence is necessary, healthy, and needs an
> outlet because it is a fundamental part of the human experience.
People think they are better then "common animals" and therefore think they
shouldn't be prone to "primal" things like fighting. Which is Bullshit.
--
Ramen Junkie
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/6098
AIM - RJ Chaos
El Cid de Rameno
>
> Y'all don't trip. Nobody is taking away your videogames.
No but all this toning down of th eviolence has made recent games more
boring.
Xenomorph.NET
playing Moral Kombat i tore my little brother's head off and ripped his
spine out. my mommy was not happy.
the next day, after playing Street Fighter II, i yelled some funny word and
a bunch of blue fire shot out of my hands and put a big hole in my wall.
see, we need to prevent stuff like that from happening to other people! i
say ban the video games!
--
- ICQ: 1372712, AoL/AiM: Silicon18
- http://www.xenomorph.net (Web Page)
- telnet://gerbil.darktech.org (BBS)
"Your friendly neighborhood Satanist."
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:39993A6C...@primenet.com...
@ I just listened to our First Lady praising efforts against videogame
@ violence by the censorious Senator, the "conscience" of the Senate, the
@ VP-wanna-be Joe Lieberman, and I have to wonder, what in the heck is
@ wrong with "videogame violence"? Why is it "bad"?
@
@ My take on videogames (I've been playing them for about 23 years) is
@ that they are imaginary. I know that I never lost a planet because I
@ couldn't save everyone in "Defender". I knew that I was playing a game.
@ The so-called "violence" is only distressing to people who would
@ believe in the reality thereof, and that really ought to be no one.
@
@ It's a GAME, folks.
@
@ Chess is an imaginary game of WAR, replete with ranks.
@ Checkers is an imaginary battlefield of advancements.
@
@ Videogame violence is not real violence. It's not even close to it,
@ if it were then anyone who popped a token into an SNK or CAPCOM
@ fighter would be liable for assault charges. They aren't.
@ The reason people play those games is for simple fun.
@
@ Lieberman's (and Hillary's) problem, imho, is that they don't have
@ any imagination. They aren't capable of the suspension of disbelief
@ that makes games fun. They see violence in a videogame, and they'll
@ call it an assault, murder, and other unspeakable horror. It's all
@ make-believe, however, and it's not real. They're tilting at
@ windmills, just like Don Quixote. They're fighting a giant which
@ isn't hurting anyone and which has no interest in fighting back.
@
@ The target is attractive for rhetoric, of course, because of the
@ common misperception that voters don't play videogames. This
@ nation *still* believes that videogames are a childhood pastime,
@ and since since politicians need to attack something to win,
@ these folks are attacking videogames. WHY? I believe it's for
@ simple expediency. They can look like they're "doing something"
@ and they think the only price to pay is the non-existent child
@ vote. They're wrong.
@
@ Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
@ shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
@ the temptation.
@
@ Before videogames, there were sports. If you want to see
@ violence, then wrestling, boxing, football and even the
@ schoolgame classic *Dodgeball* are a lot more injury-prone,
@ violent, and cause more hard feelings than videogames do.
@
@ Before videogames, there were cartoons. Elmer Fudd marched
@ around with a shotgun "hunting Wabbit". Popeye ate spinach
@ to kick Bluto's ass. Wile E. Coyote wanted a taste of a
@ Roadrunner's meat.
@
@ Before videogames, there were Westerns. The Lone Ranger
@ used a Silver Bullet as a trademark, because it was the most
@ accurate sort of bullet (not true, but it sounded cool).
@ Roy Rogers carried a gun and rode a horse, keeping the bad
@ guys at bay. John Wayne captured the imagination of America
@ when he challenged the bad guys; "Fill your hands, you sons of
@ bitches!" as he rode into a gunfight with twin Winchester
@ Model 94 30-30's in each hand. That was PURE Hollywood, a
@ Winchester Model 94 30-30 would nearly break your wrist
@ shooting it like that. That's a *very* serious gun.
@
@ Besides that, there were the wars. There was the revolution,
@ the Civil war Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American war,
@ two World wars, Korea, Vietnam, and countless others.
@
@ People *need* to fight. The most harmless way is on a video
@ display. Why oppose fighting there, on a digital, imaginary,
@ harmless battlefield rather than using REAL violence? I fully
@ believe that violence is necessary, healthy, and needs an
@ outlet because it is a fundamental part of the human experience.
@
@ Hillary, Joe, don't take away my games. You wouldn't like me
@ if you took away my games. I'd get angry. You wouldn't like
@ me when I'm angry. HULK SMASH!!
@
@ --
@ Novus ordo seclorum (Latin)- "A new cycle of the ages"
@ Motto on the reverse of the Great Seal of the
@ United States of America.
Mark McComb
> Phasm Ranger wrote:
> We cannot let the government control what we watch, play, do, smell, eat
> or whatever in the privacy of our own homes!
>Don't even get me started
> on the idea of putting an extreemly religious person in office of a
> country that is supposed to have seperation of Church and State!!!
Should the government control that then? Sheesh.
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.
It sneaks up on you. "BOO!" it says.
Everything is going extremely well. You are the brain and central nervous
system.
--
Torajima
You know Doane, this is the most intelligent thing you've ever posted.
Torajima
Torajima
<miguel...@sw.boeing.com> wrote:
> The way I see it, as it stands now we have ratings on movies and games.
> It is parental responsibility to make sure you don't take your kids
> rated R or X or XXX movies.
Ah, but most parents today don't understand the concept of parental
responsibility. It's the government's job to protect their kids...
Torajima
Torajima
Matthew Wood <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Look at the stuff they've got in Japan. Far more violent then what
> we've got here, and yet our crime rate is way higher.
If you're refering to Japanese video games, they generally contain
*less* gratuitous violence than games made in America and Europe. The
most violent games (such as Doom and Mortal Kombat) did not originate
in Japan.
If you're refering to Japanese animation, it's generally no more
violent than American live action movies.
> That's just proof that the majority of crimes are not "caused by"
> the media in the first place!
I think a lot of crimes are caused by the media.. not the gaming media,
but the NEWS media. If they didn't sensationalize and over report
everything, there'd probably be a lot less crime. I think a lot of
people who go on killing sprees either got the idea from the News, or
they figure it's their best shot at gettiing their 5 minutes of fame.
Torajima
Phasm Ranger
>
>
>> Phasm Ranger wrote:
I didn't write the stuff you quoted. Please credit accoringly.
>> We cannot let the government control what we watch, play, do,
>>smell, eat or whatever in the privacy of our own homes!
>
>
>>Don't even get me started
>>on the idea of putting an extreemly religious person in
>>office of a country that is supposed to have seperation of
>>Church and State!!!
>
>Should the government control that then? Sheesh.
Phasm Ranger
>
>Y'all don't trip. Nobody is taking away your videogames.
Not yet. They want to though. It's best to let them know how
stupid the idea is BEFORE they start launching their attacks
and proposing their bills.
Mïkê˜
"Xenomorph.NET" wrote:
>
> i support anti violence effeorts in video games because one time after
> playing Moral Kombat i tore my little brother's head off and ripped his
> spine out. my mommy was not happy.
ROFLOL!
> the next day, after playing Street Fighter II, i yelled some funny word and
> a bunch of blue fire shot out of my hands and put a big hole in my wall.
Aweful! What a shame....you should have known better. Didn't you parents
teach you not to do that!?!?
--
Mïkê˜
Torajima wrote:
> Ah, but most parents today don't understand the concept of parental
> responsibility. It's the government's job to protect their kids...
>
> Torajima
Well that just goes to show ya....that government has been too busy ,
no..WAY TOO BUSY....making laws that act like guardian rules for people.
We SHOULD have laws that make parents responsible for not being "good"
parents. That is not to say we can't also convict teens as adults, but
that is another story.
Clearly, the government (and many people) think that we should LIMIT our
personal freedoms in order to make themselves feel safer and secure.
That comes from the illusion that if they don't SEE violence on TV and
in video games, then the violence will magically disappear. NOT!
But that's just my view.
Mïkê˜
> "IRON56" <ator1athotmaildotcom> wrote:
> >
> >Y'all don't trip. Nobody is taking away your videogames.
>
Just like they didn't take away alcohol...just like they won't force you
to wear seat belts...
No they won't take them away...we'll just be playing the video game
version of spin-the-dradle, or some other orthodox-approved game.
wow...that will be fun.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Torajima <seeb...@seebelow.com> wrote:
>
> You know Doane, this is the most intelligent thing you've ever posted.
I concur. If he'd just stick to topics he actualy understood, he might
not be so bad...
-ZFP
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
terrell gibbs
<seeb...@seebelow.com> wrote:
>I think a lot of crimes are caused by the media.. not the gaming media,
>but the NEWS media. If they didn't sensationalize and over report
>everything, there'd probably be a lot less crime. I think a lot of
>people who go on killing sprees either got the idea from the News, or
>they figure it's their best shot at gettiing their 5 minutes of fame.
Sure. You're feeling powerless, like nothing you do matters to anybody. And then
some kids shoot down a bunch of the schoolmates, and suddenly *everybody* is
interested in them: What music did they listen to? What games did they play?
Were they picked on at school? Did their parents abuse them? And you think, "Man
if I did something like that, they'd *all* be sorry they ignored me...."
DaRQueSToRM
They will take my games away from my cold dead fingers!
Seriously though I agree with you 100% and its just one of many reasons I
will not vote for the Demos this year!!!
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:39993A6C...@primenet.com...
> I just listened to our First Lady praising efforts against videogame
> violence by the censorious Senator, the "conscience" of the Senate, the
> VP-wanna-be Joe Lieberman, and I have to wonder, what in the heck is
> wrong with "videogame violence"? Why is it "bad"?
>
> My take on videogames (I've been playing them for about 23 years) is
> that they are imaginary. I know that I never lost a planet because I
> couldn't save everyone in "Defender". I knew that I was playing a game.
> The so-called "violence" is only distressing to people who would
> believe in the reality thereof, and that really ought to be no one.
>
> It's a GAME, folks.
>
> Chess is an imaginary game of WAR, replete with ranks.
> Checkers is an imaginary battlefield of advancements.
>
> Videogame violence is not real violence. It's not even close to it,
> if it were then anyone who popped a token into an SNK or CAPCOM
> fighter would be liable for assault charges. They aren't.
> The reason people play those games is for simple fun.
>
> Lieberman's (and Hillary's) problem, imho, is that they don't have
> any imagination. They aren't capable of the suspension of disbelief
> that makes games fun. They see violence in a videogame, and they'll
> call it an assault, murder, and other unspeakable horror. It's all
> make-believe, however, and it's not real. They're tilting at
> windmills, just like Don Quixote. They're fighting a giant which
> isn't hurting anyone and which has no interest in fighting back.
>
> The target is attractive for rhetoric, of course, because of the
> common misperception that voters don't play videogames. This
> nation *still* believes that videogames are a childhood pastime,
> and since since politicians need to attack something to win,
> these folks are attacking videogames. WHY? I believe it's for
> simple expediency. They can look like they're "doing something"
> and they think the only price to pay is the non-existent child
> vote. They're wrong.
>
> Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
> shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
> the temptation.
>
> Before videogames, there were sports. If you want to see
> violence, then wrestling, boxing, football and even the
> schoolgame classic *Dodgeball* are a lot more injury-prone,
> violent, and cause more hard feelings than videogames do.
>
> Before videogames, there were cartoons. Elmer Fudd marched
> around with a shotgun "hunting Wabbit". Popeye ate spinach
> to kick Bluto's ass. Wile E. Coyote wanted a taste of a
> Roadrunner's meat.
>
> Before videogames, there were Westerns. The Lone Ranger
> used a Silver Bullet as a trademark, because it was the most
> accurate sort of bullet (not true, but it sounded cool).
> Roy Rogers carried a gun and rode a horse, keeping the bad
> guys at bay. John Wayne captured the imagination of America
> when he challenged the bad guys; "Fill your hands, you sons of
> bitches!" as he rode into a gunfight with twin Winchester
> Model 94 30-30's in each hand. That was PURE Hollywood, a
> Winchester Model 94 30-30 would nearly break your wrist
> shooting it like that. That's a *very* serious gun.
>
> Besides that, there were the wars. There was the revolution,
> the Civil war Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American war,
> two World wars, Korea, Vietnam, and countless others.
>
> People *need* to fight. The most harmless way is on a video
> display. Why oppose fighting there, on a digital, imaginary,
> harmless battlefield rather than using REAL violence? I fully
> believe that violence is necessary, healthy, and needs an
> outlet because it is a fundamental part of the human experience.
>
> Hillary, Joe, don't take away my games. You wouldn't like me
> if you took away my games. I'd get angry. You wouldn't like
> me when I'm angry. HULK SMASH!!
>
> --
> Novus ordo seclorum (Latin)- "A new cycle of the ages"
> Motto on the reverse of the Great Seal of the
> United States of America.
Charles Doane
Torajima wrote:
>
> In article <dmwood-CA33ED....@news.bellatlantic.net>, David
> Matthew Wood <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> > Look at the stuff they've got in Japan. Far more violent then what
> > we've got here, and yet our crime rate is way higher.
>
> If you're refering to Japanese video games, they generally contain
> *less* gratuitous violence than games made in America and Europe. The
> most violent games (such as Doom and Mortal Kombat) did not originate
> in Japan.
Japanese videogames aren't slackers in the violence department. I'd
call Resident Evil (Biohazard in Japan) pretty violent, easily on par
with anything in Doom or Mortal Kombat. Mortal Kombat doesn't really
deserve the bad rap anyway, because the nature of that violence is so
over the top as to be slapstick comedy.
Time Crisis comes to mind (Namco), and so does House of the Dead(Sega).
The big difference I see in the violent Japanese games and the Western
violence is that the Western sort isn't as serious as Japanese games
are. Parasite Eve (Squaresoft) wasn't playing around, there wasn't
anything to laugh at in that violence. Doom, on the other hand, is
funny stuff by comparison.
> If you're refering to Japanese animation, it's generally no more
> violent than American live action movies.
Akira, Fist of the North Star, Ghost in the Shell, and Golgo 13 are
all exceedingly violent. Fist of the North Star is still *easily*
the most violent movie I've ever seen. Again, the anime violence
is much more serious than the typical American action film. Even
the ultra-violent "Robocop" and "Terminator" films weren't all
that serious about it.
> > That's just proof that the majority of crimes are not "caused by"
> > the media in the first place!
>
> I think a lot of crimes are caused by the media.. not the gaming media,
> but the NEWS media. If they didn't sensationalize and over report
> everything, there'd probably be a lot less crime. I think a lot of
> people who go on killing sprees either got the idea from the News, or
> they figure it's their best shot at gettiing their 5 minutes of fame.
That I have to agree with whole-heartedly. That's exactly right.
When the Amtrak Sunset Limited was the victim of a railroad booby
trap, the media showed exactly how to use a wire to bypass the warning
system. I couldn't believe that they did that. It was irresponsible.
There was a recent report about how easy it is to bypass airport
security, including the methods used. That wasn't very smart either.
The Oklahoma city bombing reports practically provided McVeigh's
shopping list of what's needed to make a fertilizer bomb. It's
almost as if the news media *wanted* someone to imitate McVeigh.
The shooting at Columbine was dramatized, and that resulted in more
than a few "copycat" threats at schools across the nation, because
kids saw all of the attention and wanted some themselves.
Of course, it's easier to blame videogames. That's not where the
blame belongs, however.
Charles Doane
Torajima wrote:
>
> You know Doane, this is the most intelligent thing you've ever posted.
You're going to ruin my bad reputation by saying things like that :)
I just couldn't stand the silly notion that there's a quick fix for
violence, and that the fix is just as simple as eliminating it from
videogames. Common sense says that's just not true. Videogames
have only been common in homes since the Atari 2600 in the late
70's, and it's very obvious that violence existed before that.
It's extremely unlikely that Charles Manson played any videogames
before the Sharon Tate murder. Attilla the Hun was quite violent,
but as videogames were scarce around A.D. 450, they can be ruled
out as a cause. World Wars I and II can't be blamed on videogames
either, so the actual evidence shows that since there was violence
without videogames, then videogames alone don't cause violence.
There was violence long before videogames. Videogames therefore
changed nothing so far as increasing or decreasing the level of
violence.
There is an interesting article at:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990827/killing_games_01.htm
which discusses what's happened to videogames in Germany in stark
detail. It's chilling, and all of it has happened since 1990.
Please, remember two things if and when you read that. There's
not a *whole* lot of difference between the German BPS and the
USA's own ESRB, and Hillary's speech contained the word "child"
or "children" 34 times on Monday night at the DNC convention.
That's how these censors work. They'll say "it's to protect the
children" in order to take videogames away from everyone.
These censors will be just like the Arabic proverbial "camels'
nose under the tent". The camel will get it's nose in, and
then the head, and pretty soon the whole camel will be in the
tent. Censors are the same way, and they've got to be called
on it, right now.
IRON56
"El Cid de Rameno" <ramen_...@hotmail.comfortable> wrote in message
news:MPG.140333a93...@news.famvid.com...
> "IRON56" <ator1athotmaildotcom>, "IRON56" <ator1athotmaildotcom> :
> >
>
> boring.
>
Isn't Soldier of Fortune coming out for DC? That's a pretty cool game with
plenty of grislyness. My original reply was referring to the concept of the
cops coming in and confiscating violent video games. That's just not gonna
happen.
David Matthew Wood
<xenom...@hotmail.SPAM> wrote:
> i support anti violence effeorts in video games because one time after
> playing Moral Kombat i tore my little brother's head off and ripped his
> spine out. my mommy was not happy.
>
> the next day, after playing Street Fighter II, i yelled some funny word
> and
> a bunch of blue fire shot out of my hands and put a big hole in my wall.
>
> see, we need to prevent stuff like that from happening to other people! i
> say ban the video games!
heck, I was playing Mario and then a few hours later I decided to shoot
everyone with fireballs from my nose!
David Matthew Wood
Mind if I use this as my email sig?
Lee Rolfing
>
>
> Torajima wrote:
> >
> > In article <dmwood-CA33ED....@news.bellatlantic.net>, David
> > Matthew Wood <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Look at the stuff they've got in Japan. Far more violent then what
> > > we've got here, and yet our crime rate is way higher.
> >
> > If you're refering to Japanese video games, they generally contain
> > *less* gratuitous violence than games made in America and Europe. The
> > most violent games (such as Doom and Mortal Kombat) did not originate
> > in Japan.
>
> Japanese videogames aren't slackers in the violence department. I'd
> call Resident Evil (Biohazard in Japan) pretty violent, easily on par
> with anything in Doom or Mortal Kombat. Mortal Kombat doesn't really
> deserve the bad rap anyway, because the nature of that violence is so
> over the top as to be slapstick comedy.
> Time Crisis comes to mind (Namco), and so does House of the Dead(Sega).
Time Crisis is pretty tame actually. I mean, sure, you can shoot people
in the head, but it's not like you see their heads explode leaving brains
and blood on the walls. I'd agree Resident Evil is pretty nasty, but
that's why they got the M rating... so impressionable little kids
presumably wouldn't be able to get a copy without mom and dad's consent.
> The big difference I see in the violent Japanese games and the Western
> violence is that the Western sort isn't as serious as Japanese games
> are. Parasite Eve (Squaresoft) wasn't playing around, there wasn't
> anything to laugh at in that violence. Doom, on the other hand, is
> funny stuff by comparison.
Parasite eve was a little disgusting, but the violence again was pretty
tame...I mean, I used to own the game, and what I remember of it was
arcadish in how it was represented... that is, you shoot a body part (if
it's a large enemy) and the body part flashes, eventually it just
disappears...
The most violent game I own right now would have to be Bushido Blade,
Tenchu or Metal Gear Solid (I can't really decide... in their own way each
is pretty violent)... but I think each game also got an M rating too... in
the end, realistic violence is the only thing I would shield from my kids
(and probably only till they were 13-15) simply because there's no good
reason why a kid should be watching a ninja slit throats, or Solid Snake
Snapping necks... particularly the neck snapping.. might give em ideas
about playing around (and they could get hurt)...
> > If you're refering to Japanese animation, it's generally no more
> > violent than American live action movies.
>
> Akira, Fist of the North Star, Ghost in the Shell, and Golgo 13 are
> all exceedingly violent. Fist of the North Star is still *easily*
> the most violent movie I've ever seen. Again, the anime violence
> is much more serious than the typical American action film. Even
> the ultra-violent "Robocop" and "Terminator" films weren't all
> that serious about it.
I'd say the scene in Robocop where they literally blow the guy's hand off
with a shotgun was pretty darn serious.... (I don't remember the cop's
name... Peter Weller was the actor I believe).... Most of what I remember
about Terminator was stuff blowing up (people assumed to blow up with it
but not shown)... oh, and the scenes where the terminator started losing a
bit of skin to road rash or whatever....that was a bit gruesome... Alot of
kung-fu/karate fighting movies are pretty violent, but not much blood...
> > > That's just proof that the majority of crimes are not "caused by"
> > > the media in the first place!
> >
> > I think a lot of crimes are caused by the media.. not the gaming media,
> > but the NEWS media. If they didn't sensationalize and over report
> > everything, there'd probably be a lot less crime. I think a lot of
> > people who go on killing sprees either got the idea from the News, or
> > they figure it's their best shot at gettiing their 5 minutes of fame.
>
> That I have to agree with whole-heartedly. That's exactly right.
That and stupid people...I still feel like little kids (pre-teen)
shouldn't be exposed to excessive violence...and in the case of movies and
Games, they should be made to understand it's not real and not something
to be 'emulated' in real life... I wouldn't even let them watch wrestling
either...
The news media does overreport some things, but that's their job. I guess
it'd be nice if for example NBC would say "oh...CBS and FOX both are
already covering the story on the school shootings... I guess we'll just
cover something else instead" but that wouldn't be smart business...
they're in it to make money and as long as people will tune in to hear the
horror story of a kid who barely survived a school massacre, they'll
continue to show crap like that...
If you're a parent, it's your responsibility to make sure your kids aren't
stupid enough to think it'd be cool if they took some machine guns and
gunned down the class of 2001 (or whatever)... and if they ARE that
demented, perhaps you should seek medical and/or psychiatric help...
> When the Amtrak Sunset Limited was the victim of a railroad booby
> trap, the media showed exactly how to use a wire to bypass the warning
> system. I couldn't believe that they did that. It was irresponsible.
Totally stupid to show others how to copy it, and the Station airing it
should be held responsible if anyone else used it to commit a similar
crime... In fact, if they media were held partly responsible for creating
such incidents, perhaps they'd be a bit more careful about how they report
a story.
> There was a recent report about how easy it is to bypass airport
> security, including the methods used. That wasn't very smart either.
I think I know the story you were talking about, and i'm not sure, but I
think they showed that info because it was no longer valid...they may have
added new safeguards to prevent it, and so they were only reporting how
they "USED TO" get away with it...
> The Oklahoma city bombing reports practically provided McVeigh's
> shopping list of what's needed to make a fertilizer bomb. It's
> almost as if the news media *wanted* someone to imitate McVeigh.
Of course this same info is available on the net (or so I hear)...all
protected by the 1st amendment...Again, if these people were held somewhat
responsible (as accomplices if nothing else) then maybe people would think
twice about the info they're distributing and who they're giving it to...
I'm not suggesting they give up on the 1st amendment and start closing
down websites that could potentially contain info used to commit a crime,
just make it so these people can be tried in a court of law for providing
the information needed to commit a crime. Bah.. I realize that's
unrealistic and probably full of loopholes or it's unconstitutional or
something along those lines, but indeed they ARE somewhat responsible.
The real problem would be proving they were they ones the person got the
information from.
> The shooting at Columbine was dramatized, and that resulted in more
> than a few "copycat" threats at schools across the nation, because
> kids saw all of the attention and wanted some themselves.
Ratings, that's all it boils down to... they don't give a shit about some
impressionable redneck who has access to his daddy's guns or whatever...
they may say they're reporting it for altruistic reasons but it all boils
down to ratings...
> Of course, it's easier to blame videogames. That's not where the
> blame belongs, however.
I would highly doubt anyone who tried to attribute any action taken by a
mentally unstable person to one thing and one thing only. It's a
combination of factors. Bubba Plays violent videogames, his daddy drinks
and beats his momma, the gangs outside his door are having a shootout
every night, the people at school who ridcule him for not being rich
enough to wear "decent clothing"...finally he gets fed up and snaps.. but
was it the video games? If that was his only problem, chances are he'd
have lived a normal life...but you add in all the other factors and you
can almost hear his sanity shattering.
Like I've said elsewhere...Videogames might make an already unstable
person go over the edge, but it sure wasn't what got him to the breaking
point. When they can make the Utopia the politicians have been promising
in election campaigns, then they can talk...until then, changing games
isn't going to change a thing...
--
Arleas
(Check out my Bass Landing FAQ on www.gamefaqs.com)
Torajima
Lee Rolfing <arl...@imagin.net> wrote:
> The most violent game I own right now would have to be Bushido Blade,
> Tenchu
<snip>
Of course, all that spraying blood was ADDED to the American version of
Tenchu...
Personally, I thought it was totally un-realistic, and unneccesary as
well.
Torajima
David Oldridge
news:spk7nm...@corp.supernews.com...
In British Columbia (a province in Canada), the courts decided that
the PC game Soldier of Fortune was too violent to be sold in the regular
outlets that sell video games. The only stores which are legally entitled
to carry that title in BC are the ones that specialize in media with "adult
content", which would likely reduce sales of the title and profits to the
manufacturer. That's scary, because it sets a legal precedent, and despite
the differing laws of the two countries precedents are examined between the
courts of Canada and the US.
Mïkê˜
Charles Doane wrote:
[snip]
> These censors will be just like the Arabic proverbial "camels'
> nose under the tent". The camel will get it's nose in, and
> then the head, and pretty soon the whole camel will be in the
> tent. Censors are the same way, and they've got to be called
> on it, right now.
The question is, what can we do about it. The "children" have little
economic and policitical power.
This is an excellent chance for the gaming industry to band together for
a common cause. There should be some political action group formed to
lobby against these attacks. They in turn would have the support of the
entertainment industry (big bucks there!). The most everyone else would
have to do is send a letter to your representative pleading for this
cause. There needs to be something formally written up for everyone to
sign!
Mïkê˜
Mïkê˜
Mïkê˜
Xenomorph.NET
through the ceiling in my room by jumping on my bed as high as i could.. i
also ended up killing my dog Speckles by jumping on his head, and we had to
get the fire department to help me out of this pipe i tried to go into.
--
- ICQ: 1372712, AoL/AiM: Silicon18
- http://www.xenomorph.net (Web Page)
- telnet://gerbil.darktech.org (BBS)
"Your friendly neighborhood Satanist."
"David Matthew Wood" <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:dmwood-2FAE5A....@news.bellatlantic.net...
@ In article <kKem5.178$8p2....@nnrp2.sbc.net>, "Xenomorph.NET"
@ <xenom...@hotmail.SPAM> wrote:
@
@ > i support anti violence effeorts in video games because one time after
@ > playing Moral Kombat i tore my little brother's head off and ripped his
@ > spine out. my mommy was not happy.
@ >
@ > the next day, after playing Street Fighter II, i yelled some funny word
@ > and
@ > a bunch of blue fire shot out of my hands and put a big hole in my wall.
@ >
@ > see, we need to prevent stuff like that from happening to other people!
i
@ > say ban the video games!
@
@ heck, I was playing Mario and then a few hours later I decided to shoot
@ everyone with fireballs from my nose!
@
Xenomorph.NET
--
- ICQ: 1372712, AoL/AiM: Silicon18
- http://www.xenomorph.net (Web Page)
- telnet://gerbil.darktech.org (BBS)
"Your friendly neighborhood Satanist."
"David Matthew Wood" <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:dmwood-E7A28D....@news.bellatlantic.net...
@ LOL!!
@
@ Mind if I use this as my email sig?
@
@ > i support anti violence effeorts in video games because one time after
@ > playing Moral Kombat i tore my little brother's head off and ripped his
@ > spine out. my mommy was not happy.
@ >
@ > the next day, after playing Street Fighter II, i yelled some funny word
@ > and
@ > a bunch of blue fire shot out of my hands and put a big hole in my wall.
@ >
@ > see, we need to prevent stuff like that from happening to other people!
i
@ > say ban the video games!
@
KÃ¥re Hansen
didn't go that well so i jused a sledge hammer instead.
jor...@thetics.europa.com
: Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
: shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
: the temptation.
Again, one of the few times I agree Doane... video games serve to
trigger that most primal instinct... fight or flight. In a society that
has grown increasingly more polite and correct over the past 100 years
it's not surprising that we would develop an artificial way of inducing
that stimuli.
- Jordan
jor...@europa.com
********************************************************************
* "Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky, they *
* are people who say: 'This is my community, and it's my *
* responsibility to make it better.'" *
* - Tom McCall, Oregon Governor 1967 - 1974 *
********************************************************************
jor...@thetics.europa.com
: My wife and I went to an R
: rated show last weekend and the place was filled with kids of all ages
: watching some of the most violent and explicit content I have seen in a
: while.
Oooh... what movie? :^)
skco...@worldnet.att.net
>
> Well i got so mad at Mario 64 that i took a hammer and chrushed it. But it
> didn't go that well so i jused a sledge hammer instead.
I think the argument against videogame violence'd be more convincing if you popped
a 'shroom and then started jumping on the cart repeatedly :).
-Tom
El Cid de Rameno
>
> "El Cid de Rameno" <ramen_...@hotmail.comfortable> wrote in message
> news:MPG.140333a93...@news.famvid.com...
> > "IRON56" <ator1athotmaildotcom>, "IRON56" <ator1athotmaildotcom> :
> > >
> > > Y'all don't trip. Nobody is taking away your videogames.
> >
> > No but all this toning down of th eviolence has made recent games more
> > boring.
> >
>
> Isn't Soldier of Fortune coming out for DC? That's a pretty cool game with
> plenty of grislyness. My original reply was referring to the concept of the
> cops coming in and confiscating violent video games. That's just not gonna
> happen.
Yeah but all these new games are full of FMV and plot which bogs down the
whole "pointless violence" of it all.
--
Ramen Junkie
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/6098
AIM - RJ Chaos
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> There is an interesting article at:
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990827/killing_games_01.htm
> which discusses what's happened to videogames in Germany in stark
> detail. It's chilling, and all of it has happened since 1990.
>
> Please, remember two things if and when you read that. There's
> not a *whole* lot of difference between the German BPS and the
> USA's own ESRB, and Hillary's speech contained the word "child"
> or "children" 34 times on Monday night at the DNC convention.
> That's how these censors work. They'll say "it's to protect the
> children" in order to take videogames away from everyone.
>
> nose under the tent". The camel will get it's nose in, and
> then the head, and pretty soon the whole camel will be in the
> tent. Censors are the same way, and they've got to be called
> on it, right now.
I'd agree with this except that even though we've seen games and tv
rated, movie ratings more strictly emforced, etc, games, tv, and
movies, even those seemingly aimed at children, are as violent if not
more violent then ever. There's a segment of the entertainment
industry that loves to push boundaries, and that just isn't going to go
away.
figment
news:399AAF...@worldnet.att.net...
Which reminds me, video games cause drug use too! Mushrooms in Mario,
"potions" that make you feel better in FF, "Magic Dust" that can change old
women into faires in Zelda, "power pills" that make you strong in Pac Man,
and just what are those strange glowing lozenges that give Mega Man his
power? Obviously video games are a conspiracy by druggies! and not
pacifistic-hippie-pot-heads either, its those voilent-crack-heads that are
behind video games!
<please note: this post is heavily laden with sarcasm, and shouldn't be
taken seriously. Unfortunately the same pepople that think that Alice in
Wonderland is about drug use and that Bert and Ernie are gay will probably
start worrying about Nintendo being a drug cartel and that Bowser will be
pimping Pricesses Peach and Zelda in a Dolphin launch title>
---
figment
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <399A14FF...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > These censors will be just like the Arabic proverbial "camels'
> > nose under the tent". The camel will get it's nose in, and
> > then the head, and pretty soon the whole camel will be in the
> > tent. Censors are the same way, and they've got to be called
> > on it, right now.
>
> I'd agree with this except that even though we've seen games and tv
> rated, movie ratings more strictly emforced, etc, games, tv, and
> movies, even those seemingly aimed at children, are as violent if not
> more violent then ever. There's a segment of the entertainment
> industry that loves to push boundaries, and that just isn't going to go
> away.
There is a certain amount of the ratings backfiring in intent.
They do exactly the opposite of what the rating boards (like the
MPAA and the ESRB) intended. The "R" rated movie becomes a forbidden
(although not very inaccessible) fruit, just as the "M" rated game
becomes a forbidden (and also not very inaccessible) fruit to those
whom the ratings systems would deny access to.
The best way to make kids want to look at something is to tell them
that they shouldn't look at it. Adults are the exact same way.
Movies (except for Disney) make an effort at not getting a "G" rating,
because a "G" rated movie is looked upon as kiddie fare. Nevermind
that the movie might be very, very good (Kiki's Delivery Service is
"G" rated, and critically acclaimed), the "G" rating still costs a
movie some box-office (and rental) performance.
The ESRB has a *prime* example of this effect. When the ESRB started,
the equivalent to a "G" rated movie was called "K-A" for "Kids to
Adults". They changed that in order to get rid of the kiddie
stigma, so that rating is now "E" for "Everyone".
http://www.esrb.com/rating.html
The extremes are practically unused. The ESRB's "eC" for "Early
Childhood" is practically as taboo on a game console as the "Ao" for
"Adults Only" is. Why? Nobody wants to be associated with kiddie
stuff, not even the kiddies, so games (and movies) avoid such ratings
for much the same reason that they don't want to make an "Ao" game,
which would be labelled as pervert fare.
The ratings do more harm than good, and the censor's own methods
are actually backfiring. For example, Pokemon (rated "E") is a
very good game in it's own right, but an adult who plays it is
scoffed at for playing a kiddie game. "Hello Kitty", "Sailor Moon",
"Dragonball Z", "Monster Rancher" and of course "Pokemon" is
supposed to be for the kiddies. There's nothing wrong with adults
enjoying those, but the ratings make them appear to be wrong for
those who actually have mortgages, credit cards and car payments.
I don't much care what people think. I like Kiki's Delivery Service,
I think "The Lion King" was one of the best movie-license games ever,
I have "Pokemon Snap" for the N64 which I like a lot (a rail shooter
at the core), and if a game is good, it's good. I see no good
purpose in labelling *who* it's good for. If it's labelled as being
"good" for kids, then adults (and kids who want to be adults) won't
want to play it. If it's labelled as being "good" for adults, then
adults (and kids who want to be adults) see it as something *cool*,
even though it's done nothing to earn that sort of praise.
It's better to not label it at all, imho.
We don't put ratings on newspapers, textbooks, or the bad part of
the city, so why even bother with rating games when it backfires
in it's purpose?
figment
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The ratings do more harm than good, and the censor's own methods
> are actually backfiring. For example, Pokemon (rated "E") is a
> very good game in it's own right, but an adult who plays it is
> scoffed at for playing a kiddie game. "Hello Kitty", "Sailor Moon",
> "Dragonball Z", "Monster Rancher" and of course "Pokemon" is
> supposed to be for the kiddies. There's nothing wrong with adults
> enjoying those, but the ratings make them appear to be wrong for
> those who actually have mortgages, credit cards and car payments.
>
> I don't much care what people think. I like Kiki's Delivery Service,
> I think "The Lion King" was one of the best movie-license games ever,
> I have "Pokemon Snap" for the N64 which I like a lot (a rail shooter
> at the core), and if a game is good, it's good. I see no good
> purpose in labelling *who* it's good for. If it's labelled as being
> "good" for kids, then adults (and kids who want to be adults) won't
> want to play it. If it's labelled as being "good" for adults, then
> adults (and kids who want to be adults) see it as something *cool*,
> even though it's done nothing to earn that sort of praise.
Sadly, this mentality would exist even without ratings. This country
percieves animation as something for kids, and the same is true of
games, though to a lesser extent. Ironically, ratings may
actually help alleviate this perception, since animation that was rated
R and games rated M might make it clear to older audiances that this
product is meant for them and convince them to give it a try. On the
other hand, an insecure adult isn't going to watch Sailor Moon or play
Pokemon regardless or the rating it bears.
Doug Jacobs
> Actually, it wouldn't just be you. Think about it. You take
> away a kid's or young adult's means of entertaining or occupying
> themselves then you're possibly setting yourself up for
> trouble. If they lose their favorite pasttime, a lot of them
> are going to resort to other means to entertain themselves.
> Not all of these means will be as benign as playing a video
> game.
Yeah, like, they might go and start protesting the government, writing
letters to their representatives, and, oh my god, VOTING.
Doug Jacobs
> The question is, what can we do about it. The "children" have little
> economic and policitical power.
That may be true, but studies have shown that your average gamer is
now aged 18-27, and thus, able to vote.
(judging from your address, I'd guess you're also of voting age :)
100 kids writing letters to their representatives will be dismissed.
100 registered voters writing to their representatives will get noticed.
Politicians may not have a clue, but they aren't stupid.
Steve
blames video game violence for children killing other children. First off,
it is the blame of the parents for not monitoring what their children see.
Very young children should not be shown violence from games because they
can't understand it. Once you get older, you know it is just a game and
that the violence is fake. Second, if a 10 year old kid plays "Doom" (The
media always refers back to a decade old game when complaining of video game
violence) and then goes out to blast away other kids, he most likely had a
mental problem to begin with; the game just helped him/her crack. Thirdly,
dropping the violence completely could be very bad. When I was younger, I
would come home and play Super Dodge Ball for NES. Now true, there isn't
much violence. But to a young kid, it could be. Anyway, after a stressful
day of school, I enjoyed coming home to peg some guys with a dodgeball.
Since I knew I could NOT do it in real life, I loved beating up or killing
computer generated characters instead. If the violence is taken away from
all video games, where will all those urges go?? A kid coming home from
school may go out and pegging guys with BB guns, instead of dodgeballs. The
basic point is this, violence in games is NOT, I repeat, NOT harmful if it
is viewed properly. And taking it away for good may cause much more
problems than people think.
> Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
> shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
> the temptation.
>
Torajima
<daveol...@comnet.ca> wrote:
> In British Columbia (a province in Canada), the courts decided that
> the PC game Soldier of Fortune was too violent to be sold in the regular
> outlets that sell video games. The only stores which are legally entitled
> to carry that title in BC are the ones that specialize in media with "adult
> content", which would likely reduce sales of the title and profits to the
> manufacturer. That's scary, because it sets a legal precedent, and despite
> the differing laws of the two countries precedents are examined between the
> courts of Canada and the US.
Bah. Canada is pretty much a socialist country anyway! ^_^
Torajima
David Oldridge
news:160820002133189051%seeb...@seebelow.com...
Nah, just BC. :-) But on the upside, todays news featured the country's
65 year old leader getting a pie in the face, so it's not all bad. He's
hoping to get re-elected soon, and recently had the press invited for his
attempts at white water rafting. So he's probably going to have to attempt
bungee jumping to restore his "hip" image.
Charles Doane
Charles Doane wrote:
(following up on the thread) ;)
Joe Lieberman's speech is fresh in my head, and it was spoken
like a true censor. The man said that parents shouldn't have
to compete with popular culture. My jaw hit the floor. WHAT?
Holy crap! The *one* thing that binds this nation, this
AMERICA together is the common and popular culture!
That's what makes Americans call themselves Americans!
Parenting is a challenge, I'm certain of that, even though I
haven't done it myself. I see no reason to SHIELD the
inevitable, however. Our culture is who we are. In order
to be united as a nation, that culture must be shared, not
shielded, whether it's good, bad or indifferent.
I can't even imagine someone who was raised the Lieberman
way turning 18 and then having all of the crap he should
have been able to ask his parents and friends about as a kid
hitting him all at once. Childhood is a time to learn.
Adulthood is a wee bit late for that.
Lieberman spoke of looking through different eyes, of seeing
things through different eyes. He hasn't seen *jack* through
a gamer's eyes, and the only eyes that an American leader
ought to be looking through is *American* eyes, imho.
The separation of class was there; "comfort the comfortable"
was a line he used, as though the gov't exists to comfort us.
That's not their job. I have videogame systems that do a
*lot* more comforting me than the gov't possibly can.
I'm actually a bit ticked, because Lieberman's speech did
suggest that there is something wrong with our culture.
Is there something so fundamentally wrong with it that our
youngest citizens must not be exposed to it? I say that
the honorable Mr. Lieberman is selling our culture short.
If he does not like it, understand it, or approve of it,
then maybe he should try to lead something else.
I do not appreciate the slight on our pop culture one bit.
Dean Siren
Better watch out man; I heard that Gary Kasparov called Yeltzin about the
imminent fall of Russia when he lost to Big Blue!
> Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
> shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
> the temptation.
But some people have more violence to vent than others. I've read from
allaboutsex.org that one cause of violence is having un-cuddly parents while one
is younger than 5. So I've read, neing cuddled naked while young and generally
loved is the best way to keep someone from being aimlessly violent in later
years. If politicans have anything to blame, it's loveless parents.
> Hillary, Joe, don't take away my games. You wouldn't like me
> if you took away my games. I'd get angry. You wouldn't like
> me when I'm angry. HULK SMASH!!
By the maturity of your writing, I'd imagine you'll be too old for them to
regulate by the time they try. But don't stop fighting censorship just because
you're out of the age bracket; those still under 18 need your help!
Dean Siren
> characters don't amount to a hill of beans." Who cares what
> cartoon, videogame, or movie characters do? They aren't real
> people. Their actions don't affect the real world.
Obviously the Clintons and Lieberman think any minute now Joanna Dark or Duke
Nukem is going to jump out of the TV screen and blow us all away.
skco...@worldnet.att.net
Don't forget about animal abuse.
Turtles are walking aimlessly down a path, minding their own business..
(They aren't AIMING for Mario, after all... They will just walk straight
by if you jump over them.) But the player is encouraged to jump repeatedly
on the shells, tearing the turtle away, writing in pain... Only to be
smashed again by the Player in order to satisfy his never ending urge
for "points."
Most of the animals in Mario games are not "agressive," but the player
is urged to act against them agressively, and that's a horrible message
to send to children.
Oh, and you know the whole scandal with Nintendo and the drugs...
Let me ask you one thing: Ever wonder what happened to Luigi?
He was about to expose the WHOLE thing.. He had to be taken out.
-Tom
skco...@worldnet.att.net
> Like I've said elsewhere...Videogames might make an already unstable
> person go over the edge, but it sure wasn't what got him to the breaking
> point. When they can make the Utopia the politicians have been promising
> in election campaigns, then they can talk...until then, changing games
> isn't going to change a thing...
If it's not videogames, it's going to be something else.
A relationship gone bad, lost a job, etc. etc. There are a lot
of things that can drive borderline people over the edge.
-Tom
Dean Siren
> before the Sharon Tate murder. Attilla the Hun was quite violent,
> but as videogames were scarce around A.D. 450, they can be ruled
> out as a cause. World Wars I and II can't be blamed on videogames
> either, so the actual evidence shows that since there was violence
> without videogames, then videogames alone don't cause violence.
> There was violence long before videogames. Videogames therefore
> changed nothing so far as increasing or decreasing the level of
> violence.
It's also interesting that there're less video games in the middle east than
there are in the U.S., but far more violence and shaky governments. Ah!
SHIVA
was too adult of a movie for me when I was like 6, now that is damn near a
disney flick. I think maybe parenting not sitting the little bastards in
front of a tv set while mommy and daddy go to play raquetball might have an
effect no?
<neo_zo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8neh60$5pu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <399A14FF...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > There is an interesting article at:
> > http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990827/killing_games_01.htm
> > which discusses what's happened to videogames in Germany in stark
> > detail. It's chilling, and all of it has happened since 1990.
> >
> > Please, remember two things if and when you read that. There's
> > not a *whole* lot of difference between the German BPS and the
> > USA's own ESRB, and Hillary's speech contained the word "child"
> > or "children" 34 times on Monday night at the DNC convention.
> > That's how these censors work. They'll say "it's to protect the
> > children" in order to take videogames away from everyone.
> >
> > These censors will be just like the Arabic proverbial "camels'
> > nose under the tent". The camel will get it's nose in, and
> > then the head, and pretty soon the whole camel will be in the
> > tent. Censors are the same way, and they've got to be called
> > on it, right now.
>
> I'd agree with this except that even though we've seen games and tv
> rated, movie ratings more strictly emforced, etc, games, tv, and
> movies, even those seemingly aimed at children, are as violent if not
> more violent then ever. There's a segment of the entertainment
> industry that loves to push boundaries, and that just isn't going to go
> away.
>
SHIVA
stupid that I don't know any adults who can stand it let alone play it. The
problem with anime style "adult" cartoons and stuff is that the people in
charge back in the 30's decided what was proper and improper to go into
comic books etc, so there are no real american adult cartoons, except for
the undergrounds. And in Japan where that stuff is popular there are a
whole different set of things that are cool or not, for instance those
dance games are the height of popularity and one of the best selling games
now is a damn virtual fishtank, so I personally believe (don't know if it is
accurate but it is a thought) that since they are totally immersed in that
kind of thing whereas a kid would think that is exciting and cool to have
violence and sex in a game here, over there it is so commonplace that lame
shit like space channel 5 and dance dance revolution are incredibly
fascinating to them...
BTW, violence in the game has nothing to do with some psycho asswipe going
off the deep end. A little publicized (at least in the US) news story out
of Kyoto Japan says a man on an in country flight fataly stabbed the pilot,
then grabbed the controls causing the plane to plummet 3000 some feet before
being wrested to the ground, thought it was a good idea to do that because
he was sooooo good at MS flight sim that he should have tried it in real
life. Why isn't dan rather and senator leiberman screaming for the ban of
flight simulations? because there is no god damned publicity in it that's
why, if they can show Soldier of fortune blowing a man's leg off though,
that has shock value. I wish this lame assed governmen would just run the
fricken army and leave my livingroom's contents alone.
<neo_zo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8nesdh$jrf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <399ADF59...@primenet.com>,
SHIVA
"David Oldridge" <daveol...@comnet.ca> wrote in message
news:spmhj3...@corp.supernews.com...
SHIVA
just an example of darwin's law of survival of the fittest? maybe it is
just God's quircky way of keeping the population down.....
I personally think that all Criminals who commit violent Crimes should be
Executed Live on EVERY channel so that people would see what happens to
those that break the law. Whichever bleeding heart sicko thought up the
idea that part of a prison's goal is to rehabilitate should have been shot.
Just think how low taxes would be if you didn't have to pay for food, heat,
water, electricity, and cable TV for those who not only don't contribute to
society, but think it is a good Idea to prey on the weaker members of it.
let's sit these gang bangers in front of a tv showing a man in the electric
chair for murder, and ask them who they are going to cap in school monday
after they see his eyes shoot out of his head agaist the far wall and blood
pour out of his ears nose and mouth while his hair starts to smoulder... Oh
yeah and then they can see that sometimes it takes 2 or 3 applications of
current before he dies in case they think they will get away with a
painless death. Personally if there was no punishment attached I can think
of tons of crimes I'd commit: fraud, theft, reckless driving, vandalism on
that guy that steals your parking space etc... so how about instead of
making new stupid laws we make the ones we have work?
"Lee Rolfing" <arl...@imagin.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.A32.4.05.1000816...@www.imagin.net...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Charles Doane wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Torajima wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <dmwood-CA33ED....@news.bellatlantic.net>, David
> > > Matthew Wood <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Look at the stuff they've got in Japan. Far more violent then what
> > > > we've got here, and yet our crime rate is way higher.
> > >
> > > If you're refering to Japanese video games, they generally contain
> > > *less* gratuitous violence than games made in America and Europe. The
> > > most violent games (such as Doom and Mortal Kombat) did not originate
> > > in Japan.
> >
> > Japanese videogames aren't slackers in the violence department. I'd
> > call Resident Evil (Biohazard in Japan) pretty violent, easily on par
> > with anything in Doom or Mortal Kombat. Mortal Kombat doesn't really
> > deserve the bad rap anyway, because the nature of that violence is so
> > over the top as to be slapstick comedy.
> > Time Crisis comes to mind (Namco), and so does House of the Dead(Sega).
>
> Time Crisis is pretty tame actually. I mean, sure, you can shoot people
> in the head, but it's not like you see their heads explode leaving brains
> and blood on the walls. I'd agree Resident Evil is pretty nasty, but
> that's why they got the M rating... so impressionable little kids
> presumably wouldn't be able to get a copy without mom and dad's consent.
>
> > The big difference I see in the violent Japanese games and the Western
> > violence is that the Western sort isn't as serious as Japanese games
> > are. Parasite Eve (Squaresoft) wasn't playing around, there wasn't
> > anything to laugh at in that violence. Doom, on the other hand, is
> > funny stuff by comparison.
>
> Parasite eve was a little disgusting, but the violence again was pretty
> tame...I mean, I used to own the game, and what I remember of it was
> arcadish in how it was represented... that is, you shoot a body part (if
> it's a large enemy) and the body part flashes, eventually it just
> disappears...
>
> The most violent game I own right now would have to be Bushido Blade,
> Tenchu or Metal Gear Solid (I can't really decide... in their own way each
> is pretty violent)... but I think each game also got an M rating too... in
> the end, realistic violence is the only thing I would shield from my kids
> (and probably only till they were 13-15) simply because there's no good
> reason why a kid should be watching a ninja slit throats, or Solid Snake
> Snapping necks... particularly the neck snapping.. might give em ideas
> about playing around (and they could get hurt)...
>
> > > If you're refering to Japanese animation, it's generally no more
> > > violent than American live action movies.
> >
> > Akira, Fist of the North Star, Ghost in the Shell, and Golgo 13 are
> > all exceedingly violent. Fist of the North Star is still *easily*
> > the most violent movie I've ever seen. Again, the anime violence
> > is much more serious than the typical American action film. Even
> > the ultra-violent "Robocop" and "Terminator" films weren't all
> > that serious about it.
>
> I'd say the scene in Robocop where they literally blow the guy's hand off
> with a shotgun was pretty darn serious.... (I don't remember the cop's
> name... Peter Weller was the actor I believe).... Most of what I remember
> about Terminator was stuff blowing up (people assumed to blow up with it
> but not shown)... oh, and the scenes where the terminator started losing a
> bit of skin to road rash or whatever....that was a bit gruesome... Alot of
> kung-fu/karate fighting movies are pretty violent, but not much blood...
>
> > > > That's just proof that the majority of crimes are not "caused by"
> > > > the media in the first place!
> > >
> > > I think a lot of crimes are caused by the media.. not the gaming
media,
> > > but the NEWS media. If they didn't sensationalize and over report
> > > everything, there'd probably be a lot less crime. I think a lot of
> > > people who go on killing sprees either got the idea from the News, or
> > > they figure it's their best shot at gettiing their 5 minutes of fame.
> >
> > That I have to agree with whole-heartedly. That's exactly right.
>
> That and stupid people...I still feel like little kids (pre-teen)
> shouldn't be exposed to excessive violence...and in the case of movies and
> Games, they should be made to understand it's not real and not something
> to be 'emulated' in real life... I wouldn't even let them watch wrestling
> either...
>
> The news media does overreport some things, but that's their job. I guess
> it'd be nice if for example NBC would say "oh...CBS and FOX both are
> already covering the story on the school shootings... I guess we'll just
> cover something else instead" but that wouldn't be smart business...
> they're in it to make money and as long as people will tune in to hear the
> horror story of a kid who barely survived a school massacre, they'll
> continue to show crap like that...
>
> If you're a parent, it's your responsibility to make sure your kids aren't
> stupid enough to think it'd be cool if they took some machine guns and
> gunned down the class of 2001 (or whatever)... and if they ARE that
> demented, perhaps you should seek medical and/or psychiatric help...
>
> > When the Amtrak Sunset Limited was the victim of a railroad booby
> > trap, the media showed exactly how to use a wire to bypass the warning
> > system. I couldn't believe that they did that. It was irresponsible.
>
> Totally stupid to show others how to copy it, and the Station airing it
> should be held responsible if anyone else used it to commit a similar
> crime... In fact, if they media were held partly responsible for creating
> such incidents, perhaps they'd be a bit more careful about how they report
> a story.
>
> > There was a recent report about how easy it is to bypass airport
> > security, including the methods used. That wasn't very smart either.
>
> I think I know the story you were talking about, and i'm not sure, but I
> think they showed that info because it was no longer valid...they may have
> added new safeguards to prevent it, and so they were only reporting how
> they "USED TO" get away with it...
>
> > The Oklahoma city bombing reports practically provided McVeigh's
> > shopping list of what's needed to make a fertilizer bomb. It's
> > almost as if the news media *wanted* someone to imitate McVeigh.
>
> Of course this same info is available on the net (or so I hear)...all
> protected by the 1st amendment...Again, if these people were held somewhat
> responsible (as accomplices if nothing else) then maybe people would think
> twice about the info they're distributing and who they're giving it to...
>
> I'm not suggesting they give up on the 1st amendment and start closing
> down websites that could potentially contain info used to commit a crime,
> just make it so these people can be tried in a court of law for providing
> the information needed to commit a crime. Bah.. I realize that's
> unrealistic and probably full of loopholes or it's unconstitutional or
> something along those lines, but indeed they ARE somewhat responsible.
> The real problem would be proving they were they ones the person got the
> information from.
>
> > The shooting at Columbine was dramatized, and that resulted in more
> > than a few "copycat" threats at schools across the nation, because
> > kids saw all of the attention and wanted some themselves.
>
> Ratings, that's all it boils down to... they don't give a shit about some
> impressionable redneck who has access to his daddy's guns or whatever...
> they may say they're reporting it for altruistic reasons but it all boils
> down to ratings...
>
> > Of course, it's easier to blame videogames. That's not where the
> > blame belongs, however.
>
> I would highly doubt anyone who tried to attribute any action taken by a
> mentally unstable person to one thing and one thing only. It's a
> combination of factors. Bubba Plays violent videogames, his daddy drinks
> and beats his momma, the gangs outside his door are having a shootout
> every night, the people at school who ridcule him for not being rich
> enough to wear "decent clothing"...finally he gets fed up and snaps.. but
> was it the video games? If that was his only problem, chances are he'd
> have lived a normal life...but you add in all the other factors and you
> can almost hear his sanity shattering.
>
> Like I've said elsewhere...Videogames might make an already unstable
> person go over the edge, but it sure wasn't what got him to the breaking
> point. When they can make the Utopia the politicians have been promising
> in election campaigns, then they can talk...until then, changing games
> isn't going to change a thing...
>
> --
>
>
> Arleas
> (Check out my Bass Landing FAQ on www.gamefaqs.com)
>
>
SHIVA
endanger their drug traffic, what the ehll would they do aon a saturday
night if the war on drugs got effective?
"figment" <grap...@zdnetmail.com> wrote in message
news:8nekle$e21$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> <skco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:399AAF...@worldnet.att.net...
> > KÃ¥re Hansen wrote:
> > >
> > > Well i got so mad at Mario 64 that i took a hammer and chrushed it.
But
> it
> > > didn't go that well so i jused a sledge hammer instead.
> >
> > I think the argument against videogame violence'd be more convincing if
> you popped
> > a 'shroom and then started jumping on the cart repeatedly :).
>
> Which reminds me, video games cause drug use too! Mushrooms in Mario,
> "potions" that make you feel better in FF, "Magic Dust" that can change
old
> women into faires in Zelda, "power pills" that make you strong in Pac Man,
> and just what are those strange glowing lozenges that give Mega Man his
> power? Obviously video games are a conspiracy by druggies! and not
> pacifistic-hippie-pot-heads either, its those voilent-crack-heads that are
> behind video games!
>
> <please note: this post is heavily laden with sarcasm, and shouldn't be
> taken seriously. Unfortunately the same pepople that think that Alice in
> Wonderland is about drug use and that Bert and Ernie are gay will probably
> start worrying about Nintendo being a drug cartel and that Bowser will be
> pimping Pricesses Peach and Zelda in a Dolphin launch title>
>
> ---
> figment
>
>
El Cid de Rameno
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:02:05 -0500, El Cid de Rameno
> <ramen_...@hotmail.comfortable> wrote:
>
> >Basically I blame liberalist women of the 60s for wanting to work, since it
> >only lead to inflation, not more money, and the government, for being run by
> >the "almighty election" more than being run by "what's good for the people"
>
> HEH.
It's true! I'm not saying women shouldn't work, I'm saying that households
should have never become two income.
Dean Siren
> a role model, or even know what that child is doing, who their friends are,
> or who they are for that matter. The lose gun laws in this country make
> handguns and rifles readily available. Ads on TV for alcohol consumption.
> Loose morals where even the President of the U.S. sets a bad example.
> Violence in almost all TV shows, except those that have either bad language
> or sexual themes.
The problem will not vanish until parents stop abandonning their children. I
don't know what will cause them to look after their kids. Maybe adults who know
they don't have time for kids will in fact not have them just because "it's
time." Maybe it'll become trendy to spend more time with the kids. Maybe our
culture will not put so much pressure on long hours at work. Maybe schools will
demand less homework but proof of family time. Maybe we'll let locals handle
local shootings instead of NBC. Maybe all of these things will happen. But
violence will not vanish until all of them will happen. And what we see on TV,
in movies, on the net and hear in music is merely a bi-product of what happens
in the home, at school, at work, in church, and on the street. Art imitates
life more than we might think.
> It is sickening...especially the media where they act like they are just
> reporting the news, when infact they are sensationalizing and creating
> their own news. The media wonders why high-school shootings are happening
> all the time.
They aren't wondering; they want it to happen! They'd stage a slaughter in a
pre-school if they knew they wouldn't get caught.
Dean Siren
>
> movies, books, games, ect. If it was created by the generation complaining
> (not necessarily created, but you get the idea I hope, I guess what I'm
> looking for here s not 'created by' but 'played by') then it must be good.
Think about this. We like what we played/watched, but hate what others
play/watch, especially kids younger than us. Does that mean that we, who grew
up with Mortal Kombat, Terminator and Doom, despise the kids who play Pokemon
and watch Power Puff Girls? I'm personally kinda envious of today's kids
because Power Puff Girls is a lot more violent than the stuff I watched (Smurfs,
Mario, Ninja Turtles) as a kid. When today's 6-11 year olds become teenagers,
they'll be watching and playing stuff that will make MK and TMNT look like
Barney. What will we do about that? Will we try to take it away from them?
And if so, why? Will we envy them? Will we think it's perverting their minds?
Will we tell them that Splinter is a more wholesome sedatave than Dr. Oak?
Since we're all bitching about what adults are trying to do to us kids today,
what are we gonna do when we're adults and we have kids?
Doug Jacobs
> security and insecurity have nothing to do with it. Pokemon is so damn
> stupid that I don't know any adults who can stand it let alone play it. The
> problem with anime style "adult" cartoons and stuff is that the people in
> charge back in the 30's decided what was proper and improper to go into
> comic books etc, so there are no real american adult cartoons, except for
> the undergrounds.
Oh, I dunno about that... I can think of some anime titles that aren't
for kids (and no, they aren't hyper violent/porno either.)
I can think of a number of comics that are for adults as well. No, they
aren't Marvel, but, well, that's sort of the point :) Heck, aren't the only
comics that still meet "the code" things like Richie Rich and Archie?
> And in Japan where that stuff is popular there are a
> whole different set of things that are cool or not, for instance those
> dance games are the height of popularity and one of the best selling games
> now is a damn virtual fishtank, so I personally believe (don't know if it is
> accurate but it is a thought) that since they are totally immersed in that
> kind of thing whereas a kid would think that is exciting and cool to have
> violence and sex in a game here, over there it is so commonplace that lame
> shit like space channel 5 and dance dance revolution are incredibly
> fascinating to them...
Heh... Despite the perception seen here, parents in Japan also don't
like exposing their kids to sex or violence. It's not like you've got
parents making their kids watch "Hard Boiled" instead of "Seasame Street."
Japan also has its parent groups that speak out against video games and
comic books. In some cases, towns have passed rules forbidding the sale
of such items along school routes.
If anything, folks are just more responsible about it over there. Kids
know what they should or shouldn't watch/read, and for the most part that's
the end of it.
Charles Doane
Dean Siren wrote:
>
> > Chess is an imaginary game of WAR, replete with ranks.
>
> Better watch out man; I heard that Gary Kasparov called Yeltzin about the
> imminent fall of Russia when he lost to Big Blue!
Gary Kasparov would have been nearly right. Russia is a sad shadow of
it's former fearsome self, with rebel provinces like Chechnya causing
the former superpower grief.
> > Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
> > shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
> > the temptation.
>
> But some people have more violence to vent than others. I've read from
> allaboutsex.org that one cause of violence is having un-cuddly parents while one
> is younger than 5. So I've read, neing cuddled naked while young and generally
> loved is the best way to keep someone from being aimlessly violent in later
> years. If politicans have anything to blame, it's loveless parents.
I'd say it's irresponsible parents, myself. The entire Columbine massacre
could have been prevented if the parents would have maybe noticed their
mentally deranged kid was wearing black makeup, a trench coat, and was
buying stuff to make propane bombs.
What does the media look at and blame, though? Not the incompetent and
uncaring parenting, nope, they look at DOOM for the cause. That's a
totally ridiculous bit of scapegoating.
> > Hillary, Joe, don't take away my games. You wouldn't like me
> > if you took away my games. I'd get angry. You wouldn't like
> > me when I'm angry. HULK SMASH!!
>
> By the maturity of your writing, I'd imagine you'll be too old for them to
> regulate by the time they try. But don't stop fighting censorship just because
> you're out of the age bracket; those still under 18 need your help!
There's no such thing as "too old to regulate". The nature of video gaming
as it enters the mainstream is such that if something is banned for one
group, then it's banned for all. Video games are made to sell to a wide
audience, and console games especially have to have a wide-ranging appeal
because of the limited potential user base.
Look at the ESRB rating of "Ao", which is supposed to be "Adults Only".
There are *no* console games with such a rating, and if a game were to
be so rated, there's no doubt that it would have the offending part cut
out to get a lower, more salable rating.
The censors have already achieved a bit of success in banning "Ao"
games, in practice if not in law, and so they do affect gaming for
everyone.
For example, one of the import titles I have is Konami's "Sexy
Parodius", which is a top-notch shooter along the lines of "Gradius",
but with a twist. One of the classic hallmarks of a good twitch
shooter is that it will try to distract the gamer, and in this
particular game, the distractions are quite, erm, distracting.
You don't REALLY see anything though, except at the very end where
a picture starts revealing itself (really revealing itself) during
the final boss fight, but it's all animation. So what if a cartoon
breast (or two) is shown? You don't see anything worse than a naked
Cupie doll, and the whole point of the game, like all of the Parodius
games, is to be funny. The game will never see an American release,
however, because of the censorship standards applied here.
Another title is "Dead or Alive 2", which had the "Kasumi in Jell-O"
scene cut from the intro, and again, that's no big deal. If you
want to see it and you have the game, just get a top 10 in "Survival"
mode with your age set over 21, and enter "REALDEMO" as your name.
Alternately, you could strip a Barbie doll, and stick it into some
lemon Jell-O. That scene got *cut* to appease the censors, and for
no really good reason. It's not as if kids can't notice that some
women actually have breasts, and there's more to be seen on a
typical beach than in that intro, so what is the purpose of cutting
that relatively *innocent* scene?
Japan has almost no censorship (other than what the audience will
allow) and yet the crime rate is so low that they can make doors
out of paper. The problem isn't that people see sex and violence
at all. The problem is the lack of respect which causes crimes.
Censorship promoters like Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are
attacking a symptom, and it's not even related to the malady.
Respect is what's lacking. You can have a squeaky-clean totally
sanitized group of people who don't have access to any porno,
any sinful indulgences, and it won't fix anything. Devout Muslim
law almost REQUIRES total abstinence from alcohol and perversity,
and yet those guys aren't known for their peacefulness at all.
Middle East Peace is a myth, and I have yet to even *see* a
Palestinian video game. What kind of game do you think it would
be? DRIVER with a car bomb? Molotov Cocktail bottle tossing?
Violence exists completely independent of video games. Banning
or censoring video games does not, cannot, and will not stop the
violence. Only respect can do that. All imho.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Look at the ESRB rating of "Ao", which is supposed to be "Adults
> Only". There are *no* console games with such a rating, and if a game
> were to be so rated, there's no doubt that it would have the
> offending part cut out to get a lower, more salable rating.
>
> The censors have already achieved a bit of success in banning "Ao"
> games, in practice if not in law, and so they do affect gaming for
> everyone.
Blame the almighty dollar for that, not the rating. That sort of
mentality doesn't just kill potential "Ao" games, but stands a good
chance of killing any niche-market product in any medium.
> Japan has almost no censorship.
Um, yes, they most certainly do. I'm sure you've watched enough anime
to see the evidence of it. Censorship there seems to be more a matter
of censoring actual images though, not mature themes or content.
Dean Siren
> uncaring parenting, nope, they look at DOOM for the cause. That's a
> totally ridiculous bit of scapegoating.
They don't blame parents because then they'd be blaming themselves. The job of
TV reporting requires the reporter to be at the camera in evenings when kids are
home, yet these reporters probably have children anyway.
> There's no such thing as "too old to regulate". The nature of video gaming
> as it enters the mainstream is such that if something is banned for one
> group, then it's banned for all. Video games are made to sell to a wide
> audience, and console games especially have to have a wide-ranging appeal
> because of the limited potential user base.
>
> Look at the ESRB rating of "Ao", which is supposed to be "Adults Only".
> There are *no* console games with such a rating, and if a game were to
> be so rated, there's no doubt that it would have the offending part cut
> out to get a lower, more salable rating.
Stores and rental places didn't allow such games before the ratings, so that's
to be expected. Once you can pay-per-play games on the internet, Ao will be out
there.
> The censors have already achieved a bit of success in banning "Ao"
> games, in practice if not in law, and so they do affect gaming for
> everyone.
>
> For example, one of the import titles I have is Konami's "Sexy
> Parodius", which is a top-notch shooter along the lines of "Gradius",
> but with a twist. One of the classic hallmarks of a good twitch
> shooter is that it will try to distract the gamer, and in this
> particular game, the distractions are quite, erm, distracting.
> You don't REALLY see anything though, except at the very end where
> a picture starts revealing itself (really revealing itself) during
> the final boss fight, but it's all animation. So what if a cartoon
> breast (or two) is shown? You don't see anything worse than a naked
> Cupie doll, and the whole point of the game, like all of the Parodius
> games, is to be funny. The game will never see an American release,
> however, because of the censorship standards applied here.
Breasts will only get you an M. Titanic had breasts and it only got a T (well,
PG-13). Albert Oddysey for Saturn actually had some profanity, jokes about sex,
being drunk, being gay, and Fantasia-style full-frontal nudity. Yet it got an E
(AKA G or PG). The ESRB is really flaky, as is the MPAA I'd imagine.
> Another title is "Dead or Alive 2", which had the "Kasumi in Jell-O"
> scene cut from the intro, and again, that's no big deal. If you
> want to see it and you have the game, just get a top 10 in "Survival"
> mode with your age set over 21, and enter "REALDEMO" as your name.
> Alternately, you could strip a Barbie doll, and stick it into some
> lemon Jell-O. That scene got *cut* to appease the censors, and for
> no really good reason. It's not as if kids can't notice that some
> women actually have breasts, and there's more to be seen on a
> typical beach than in that intro, so what is the purpose of cutting
> that relatively *innocent* scene?
The same reason religious fundamentalists object to Harry Potter, because they
have too much time on their hands.
> Japan has almost no censorship (other than what the audience will
> allow) and yet the crime rate is so low that they can make doors
> out of paper.
I've heard they'll gladly censor anything that blames Japan for WW2. We censor
superficial stuff, they censor something deep. You can object to either one.
> Devout Muslim
> law almost REQUIRES total abstinence from alcohol and perversity,
> and yet those guys aren't known for their peacefulness at all.
> Middle East Peace is a myth, and I have yet to even *see* a
> Palestinian video game. What kind of game do you think it would
> be? DRIVER with a car bomb? Molotov Cocktail bottle tossing?
> Violence exists completely independent of video games. Banning
> or censoring video games does not, cannot, and will not stop the
> violence. Only respect can do that. All imho.
This is a good point any popular politican will not allow to be spoken in a
popular forum. Remember, today's politicans grew up in the days when people
weren't meant to debate, back when TV was all we had. Now that there's the net,
we can actually debate this stuff in detail. D.C. just doesn't get that, and
won't earn our votes until they respect grassroots forums. Or until we start
them.
Mïkê˜
Dean Siren wrote:
[snip]
> Since we're all bitching about what adults are trying to do to us kids today,
> what are we gonna do when we're adults and we have kids?
Good Point!
It is VERY likely in the NEAR future you will be able to take a picture
of yourself, import it as a game model and actually put yourself in the
game running around after other people. To most everyone this is a very
scary thought.
Imagine running around in a building shooting your brother or sister!
Everyone watching the game will be shocked to see such an explicit and
personal display of violence.
Yet , the truth still stands. It is just a game.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <399BD30F...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Look at the ESRB rating of "Ao", which is supposed to be "Adults
> > Only". There are *no* console games with such a rating, and if a game
> > were to be so rated, there's no doubt that it would have the
> > offending part cut out to get a lower, more salable rating.
> >
> > The censors have already achieved a bit of success in banning "Ao"
> > games, in practice if not in law, and so they do affect gaming for
> > everyone.
>
> Blame the almighty dollar for that, not the rating. That sort of
> mentality doesn't just kill potential "Ao" games, but stands a good
> chance of killing any niche-market product in any medium.
The dollar isn't to blame, the games simply have to sell or they won't
be sold. It's capitalism, and it works. That's one of the main
reasons that censorship isn't necessary. The market is quite capable
of taking care of crappy or offensive games (and movies) all on it's
own.
You don't see "Rise of the Robots" continuing as a series, after all.
Why not? It was crap, that's why not. Good games can last for a
very long time. Capcom knows that, which is why Capcom could release
'Street Fighter Vs. Resident Evil' and practically mint money.
Never forget, videogames are a luxury item. As such, the consumers
are more capable of taking care of offensive or crappy games than any
gov't thuggery could ever be.
> > Japan has almost no censorship.
>
> Um, yes, they most certainly do. I'm sure you've watched enough anime
> to see the evidence of it. Censorship there seems to be more a matter
> of censoring actual images though, not mature themes or content.
I imagine you're talking about the "mosaic" stuff. That's not really
censorship, because it's self-imposed. It's like saying that the
general rarity of obscene words in my posts is censorship, and it's
not. No one is telling me not to use bad language, I choose not to.
It's not censorship.
Doug Jacobs
>> Um, yes, they most certainly do. I'm sure you've watched enough anime
>> to see the evidence of it. Censorship there seems to be more a matter
>> of censoring actual images though, not mature themes or content.
> I imagine you're talking about the "mosaic" stuff. That's not really
> censorship, because it's self-imposed. It's like saying that the
> general rarity of obscene words in my posts is censorship, and it's
> not. No one is telling me not to use bad language, I choose not to.
> It's not censorship.
It used to be against the law in Japan to show pubic hair (you can thank
the occupation for that law...) Those who didn't follow this law would
be arrested for indecency.
The law's been retracted recentally, but still, many publishers do
still blot out pubic hair to avoid angering the public.
Scott X
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:39993A6C...@primenet.com...
> I just listened to our First Lady praising efforts against videogame
> violence by the censorious Senator, the "conscience" of the Senate, the
> VP-wanna-be Joe Lieberman, and I have to wonder, what in the heck is
> wrong with "videogame violence"? Why is it "bad"?
>
I'd have to agree with you man. "Violence" in games isn't bad, just
some people are. I was teasing my sister's roomate today about her
collection of Snes games, and she asked me how violent the games I had were.
Specifically she said "Oh and I suppose a game has to have blood flying
around in it for it to be good." I laughed and pointed out to her that she
had blood flowing through her veins at this very moment, and that it isn't
bad stuff.
I was being really sarcastic with her, because I've had multiple
encounters with her and she's proven herself to be completely incapable of
rational thought or conversation. Much the same as I've found anyone who
thinks videogames are the cause of our country's problems.
I'd have to say that it is quite the opposite actually. We shelter our
people too much in this country, funeral homes take care of our dead, and
doctors take care of our sick and injured, so we don't have to deal with it.
Not that I think Doctors should be replaced, I'm just pointing out how easy
it is to ignore death in this country.
I'd say that having a video game character flicker and go away, after
being shot, would be more damaging to a kids expectations of reality than
having what would actually happen depicted. I could be wrong though, I've
been so before. I just know that I've played games since I was a small boy,
and I have never even been in a fight, much less tried to kill someone.
Scott X
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The dollar isn't to blame, the games simply have to sell or they won't
> be sold. It's capitalism, and it works. That's one of the main
> reasons that censorship isn't necessary. The market is quite capable
> of taking care of crappy or offensive games (and movies) all on it's
> own.
Nope. What's offensive to one may be desireable to others. Censorship
doesn't even enter the picture. If you don't think adults-only
products will sell, you're more naive than I thought. The fact is that
they won't have any mainstream appeal though, and like any other niche
product, that puts them in danger of never seeing the light of day,
regardless of any ratings system that may be in place.
> Never forget, videogames are a luxury item. As such, the consumers
> are more capable of taking care of offensive or crappy games than any
> gov't thuggery could ever be.
The long string of Tomb Raider games, Mortal combat titles, Doom
clones, and crap like Panty Raider prove otherwise.
> I imagine you're talking about the "mosaic" stuff.
Mosaic? Like I said, if you have any significant exposure to anime
you'd know that they have similar guidelines regarding graphic nudity
and violence. Anime that was originally broadcast on TV won't
generally contain any especially objectionable visuals. On the off
chance that it does show any people naked, they won't be "anatomically
correct"(you can see it in Fushigi Yuugi, Sailor Moon, etc.).
And no, this isn't voluntary. They have rules and regulations, just
like us.
> That's not really censorship, because it's self-imposed.
Sort of like the way the makers of a movie or game will voluntarily
sofen it to avoid a "adults-only" rating?
am
You need to get out more and stop listening to other people
talk.
Yeah right--violent video games is part of the big bad recipe.
Consider that many of the people that go wacky and violent don't own video
games,but simply are nutty anyways.
What did people use for blame,when someone kills his whole family back maybe
100 or 200 years ago?
not very many game systems with bad games out back then huh?!?
Back then,the public would have a man hunt,and take care of him the way the
laws of the land demand,----without putting blame somewhere else!!!!!
And what is with blaming the media on reporting a violent event.
It is something that happened,and people will want to hear about it.
As if not reporting about world war 2,it wouldn't have happened in the first
place,right?
Whats up attacking alcohol ads,
you probably would like to have America go back to prohibition.
Where do these people come up with these wack ideas!
Your entire post is riddled with crap that just leads me to think that you
want to be controlled without any freedoms at all.
Have you ever heard of the free press
Go live elsewhere for a year or two,then come back and you will see the
light of day on how great it is to have atleast some freedoms.
sheesh!--get rid of violent video games?
Hell,for adults,many of the games don't have enough violence and gore,and
sex.
I like to play some kiddie games,as well as adult games,but we need to
continue to allow creators of all medias to be as free as possible,otherwise
we may end up with a toned down generic version of a movie or a game or
music.
No censorship at all with a sensible rating system that is 100% controlled
by the gaming industry(no government is needed) is the best way,but then we
will always be cursed with people that want to be controlled.
Jerry <york...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8F917EFC3yor...@129.176.212.33...
> Video game violence IS a problem...now before you flame back, please read
> on.
>
> However, it is no more a problem than anything else in our society. What
> creates a "monster" is not one thing, but a combination of things. Thus,
> the violence in video games is just one of the ingredients to a bad
recipe.
>
> The child that comes home to an empty household, where there's no one to
be
> a role model, or even know what that child is doing, who their friends
are,
> or who they are for that matter. The lose gun laws in this country make
> handguns and rifles readily available. Ads on TV for alcohol consumption.
> Loose morals where even the President of the U.S. sets a bad example.
> Violence in almost all TV shows, except those that have either bad
language
> or sexual themes.
>
> All of these things are not good, yet the government would like to point
at
> one and say "see, there is the problem, we will pass laws and eliminate
the
> problem - vote for us".
>
> It is sickening...especially the media where they act like they are just
> reporting the news, when infact they are sensationalizing and creating
> their own news. The media wonders why high-school shootings are happening
> all the time, yet they are the first ones there in their vans to catch the
> breaking news and show the blood splattered hallways. How incredibly
> insane!
>
>
>
>
> gdo...@primenet.com (Charles Doane) wrote in
> <39993A6C...@primenet.com>:
>
> >I just listened to our First Lady praising efforts against videogame
> >violence by the censorious Senator, the "conscience" of the Senate, the
> >VP-wanna-be Joe Lieberman, and I have to wonder, what in the heck is
> >wrong with "videogame violence"? Why is it "bad"?
> >
> >My take on videogames (I've been playing them for about 23 years) is
> >that they are imaginary. I know that I never lost a planet because I
> >couldn't save everyone in "Defender". I knew that I was playing a game.
> >The so-called "violence" is only distressing to people who would
> >believe in the reality thereof, and that really ought to be no one.
> >
> >It's a GAME, folks.
> >
> >Chess is an imaginary game of WAR, replete with ranks.
> >Checkers is an imaginary battlefield of advancements.
> >
> >Videogame violence is not real violence. It's not even close to it,
> >if it were then anyone who popped a token into an SNK or CAPCOM
> >fighter would be liable for assault charges. They aren't.
> >The reason people play those games is for simple fun.
> >
> >Lieberman's (and Hillary's) problem, imho, is that they don't have
> >any imagination. They aren't capable of the suspension of disbelief
> >that makes games fun. They see violence in a videogame, and they'll
> >call it an assault, murder, and other unspeakable horror. It's all
> >make-believe, however, and it's not real. They're tilting at
> >windmills, just like Don Quixote. They're fighting a giant which
> >isn't hurting anyone and which has no interest in fighting back.
> >
> >The target is attractive for rhetoric, of course, because of the
> >common misperception that voters don't play videogames. This
> >nation *still* believes that videogames are a childhood pastime,
> >and since since politicians need to attack something to win,
> >these folks are attacking videogames. WHY? I believe it's for
> >simple expediency. They can look like they're "doing something"
> >and they think the only price to pay is the non-existent child
> >vote. They're wrong.
> >
> >Violence needs an outlet. There's a little devil on everyone's
> >shoulder, and videogames are the most HARMLESS way to assuage
> >the temptation.
> >
> >Before videogames, there were sports. If you want to see
> >violence, then wrestling, boxing, football and even the
> >schoolgame classic *Dodgeball* are a lot more injury-prone,
> >violent, and cause more hard feelings than videogames do.
> >
> >Before videogames, there were cartoons. Elmer Fudd marched
> >around with a shotgun "hunting Wabbit". Popeye ate spinach
> >to kick Bluto's ass. Wile E. Coyote wanted a taste of a
> >Roadrunner's meat.
> >
> >Before videogames, there were Westerns. The Lone Ranger
> >used a Silver Bullet as a trademark, because it was the most
> >accurate sort of bullet (not true, but it sounded cool).
> >Roy Rogers carried a gun and rode a horse, keeping the bad
> >guys at bay. John Wayne captured the imagination of America
> >when he challenged the bad guys; "Fill your hands, you sons of
> >bitches!" as he rode into a gunfight with twin Winchester
> >Model 94 30-30's in each hand. That was PURE Hollywood, a
> >Winchester Model 94 30-30 would nearly break your wrist
> >shooting it like that. That's a *very* serious gun.
> >
> >Besides that, there were the wars. There was the revolution,
> >the Civil war Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American war,
> >two World wars, Korea, Vietnam, and countless others.
> >
> >People *need* to fight. The most harmless way is on a video
> >display. Why oppose fighting there, on a digital, imaginary,
> >harmless battlefield rather than using REAL violence? I fully
> >believe that violence is necessary, healthy, and needs an
> >outlet because it is a fundamental part of the human experience.
skco...@worldnet.att.net
> > For example, one of the import titles I have is Konami's "Sexy
> > Parodius", which is a top-notch shooter along the lines of "Gradius",
> > but with a twist. One of the classic hallmarks of a good twitch
> > shooter is that it will try to distract the gamer, and in this
> > particular game, the distractions are quite, erm, distracting.
> > You don't REALLY see anything though, except at the very end where
> > a picture starts revealing itself (really revealing itself) during
> > the final boss fight, but it's all animation. So what if a cartoon
> > breast (or two) is shown? You don't see anything worse than a naked
> > Cupie doll, and the whole point of the game, like all of the Parodius
> > games, is to be funny. The game will never see an American release,
> > however, because of the censorship standards applied here.
>
> Breasts will only get you an M. Titanic had breasts and it only got a T (well,
> PG-13). Albert Oddysey for Saturn actually had some profanity, jokes about sex,
> being drunk, being gay, and Fantasia-style full-frontal nudity. Yet it got an E
> (AKA G or PG). The ESRB is really flaky, as is the MPAA I'd imagine.
Persona's final boss FMV of Pandora had a bare breast in it...
(Persona was rated K-A.)
-Tom
Muskie
along with violent movies. Nice try Doane.
-Muskie
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <399CA8EE...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > The dollar isn't to blame, the games simply have to sell or they won't
> > be sold. It's capitalism, and it works. That's one of the main
> > reasons that censorship isn't necessary. The market is quite capable
> > of taking care of crappy or offensive games (and movies) all on it's
> > own.
>
> Nope. What's offensive to one may be desireable to others.
Sales figures don't lie. If a game tanks, that's the end of it. While
there may actually be some people who like crappy games, the vote is
with the dollar. It's the ultimate democracy, and while it doesn't
stop crap from being made, it does seek and destroy it very efficiently.
> Censorship doesn't even enter the picture. If you don't think adults-only
> products will sell, you're more naive than I thought.
Of course the adults-only products won't sell, at least not enough to
make a profit with. It's simple economics. Let's say that there are
2 million DC's in the USA. A game with a $10 million budget at $30 per
copy needs to sell 300,000+ copies for the break-even point. That's
not even making money, and yet it has to appeal to 1 in 6 DC owners
enough to sell a copy. When you start segmenting the market, it gets
much worse.
For example, let me make up a T&A off-color game. I'll call it
"Panty-shot Channel 5". Now, the budget is $10 mil, and I need to sell
300K+ copies, but I just *killed* my potential userbase.
Children are gone, so out of 2 Million DC owners, I'm down by easily
half, or 1 Million. Women probably won't want to see that either
(most women who also don't watch the WNBA), so that's going to be
another 1/10th. Of the remaining 900K adult males who own DC's,
probably half of those are married to women who would bash in their
skulls for buying T&A stuff, so I'm down to 450K potential audience.
A 50% sellthrough is phenomonal, so the best I can honestly hope to
achieve is 225K copies. I'm practically guaranteed to lose my shirt.
> The fact is that they won't have any mainstream appeal though,
> and like any other niche product, that puts them in danger of
> never seeing the light of day, regardless of any ratings system
> that may be in place.
That's basically what I'm saying. The videogame marketplace is the
ultimate democracy. People vote with their dollars, and by such means,
the people ultimately have control of the marketplace.
> > Never forget, videogames are a luxury item. As such, the consumers
> > are more capable of taking care of offensive or crappy games than any
> > gov't thuggery could ever be.
>
> The long string of Tomb Raider games, Mortal combat titles, Doom
> clones, and crap like Panty Raider prove otherwise.
The first Tomb Raider game was excellent. Top notch, a fantastic
must-play game.
MKII was, imho, the best of the series and definitely worthy of
playing, although it's no Street Fighter II or King of Fighters.
DOOM was a very good game, although I think it's falsely given the
credit that Wolfenstein 3D truly deserves. No matter, both are ID
games. There's nothing wrong with that game if you like FPS. I
*can* play FPS, but they're pretty low on my list of fave game
genres.
Panty Raider, that's a PC (computer, not Politically Correct)
title, and so it's already lacking in redeeming features. I
did see a copy in a store, but I don't play games on PC's.
It takes too long to disinfect the machine.
> > I imagine you're talking about the "mosaic" stuff.
>
> Mosaic? Like I said, if you have any significant exposure to anime
> you'd know that they have similar guidelines regarding graphic nudity
> and violence. Anime that was originally broadcast on TV won't
> generally contain any especially objectionable visuals. On the off
> chance that it does show any people naked, they won't be "anatomically
> correct"(you can see it in Fushigi Yuugi, Sailor Moon, etc.).
>
> And no, this isn't voluntary. They have rules and regulations, just
> like us.
You see *quite* a bit in "New Cutey Honey", moreso than several others.
First she yells it, then she does it; "Honey Flash!". I don't know
how you'd call those "similar guidelines".
As for the "mosaic", I'm talking about the filters applied to the
*really* hentai stuff. I don't have any examples, because I don't
actually own anything like that. I'm not interested in hentai.
> > That's not really censorship, because it's self-imposed.
>
> Sort of like the way the makers of a movie or game will voluntarily
> sofen it to avoid a "adults-only" rating?
Certainly. It's not censorship when the author plays by the rules.
It is when the rules are forcibly imposed by an outside authority,
however. For example, occasionally I get on the Dreamcast's IRC
and type back and forth. As long as the participants play by the
rules (no cursing, threats, etc.), they may say what they want to.
However, they'll get kicked off for violating the rules. Is that
censorship? Not at all. They can say what they like, however they
like, they just can't do it on someone else's forum as a guest.
The reason why not is that there are consequences for actions.
Let's say that you called a talk radio show and just started
yelling obscene language. You'd run right into the 5-second
delay, and your words wouldn't ever make it onto the airwaves.
Why not? You're a guest, it's not your forum. If you want to
buy a radio station and pay the fines, then you can say what
you like, but you can't convert the use of another's forum and
claim it as "freedom of speech".
Charles Doane
Muskie wrote:
>
> This coming from the same person who said that vulgar music should be censored
> along with violent movies. Nice try Doane.
I didn't say that the gov't should do it. That power is in the hands of
the record labels, movie studios and the consumers already.
The MPAA don't bother me as much as the ESRB do, and the reason why
is that the MPAA are actually made up of movie professionals.
MPAA:
The board of directors are actually *in* the film industry, so there's
little doubt that these men know what they're doing and know what they're
handling. They know the product inside and out, these are industry
professionals involved in producing Television and Film. They are
experts, and they are authorities in their own right, as they actually
come from the industry that they are inspecting. The MPAA is completely
self-regulated by insiders with a stake in their business.
http://www.mpaa.org/about/
The MPAA is in stark contrast to the ESRB.
ESRB:
The members of the ESRB have no ties whatsoever to the videogame industry,
in fact involvement in the videogame industry is a disqualification from
serving on the board of the ESRB. The ESRB is made up of industry
outsiders, people who know nothing about, and have nothing to do with,
the videogame industry. The ESRB are mainly childrens' education
professionals, and while the board might be good for making the world's
greatest pre-school, they don't know jack about the entertainment of
videogames. These are education professionals, not entertainment
professionals. These are children's Psychologists, school Principals,
and other academics. The ESRB prides itself on being independent and
apart from the videogame industry, but being such makes them almost
useless. Acadamia doesn't know *anything* about entertainment.
It's like asking the PTA what radio station to listen to. It makes
no sense, and outsiders gaining that sort of power actually can
become censorship very easily. Non-gamers regulating games? BAD STUFF.
http://www.esrb.org/news.html
Doug Jacobs
> What did people use for blame,when someone kills his whole family back maybe
> 100 or 200 years ago?
The devil, of course.
> Back then,the public would have a man hunt,and take care of him the way the
> laws of the land demand,----without putting blame somewhere else!!!!!
Sometimes, yes. Othertimes, they'd say the devil made them do it. Read
about the Salem Witch Trials sometime. Have things really changed that
much?
> And what is with blaming the media on reporting a violent event.
> It is something that happened,and people will want to hear about it.
> As if not reporting about world war 2,it wouldn't have happened in the first
> place,right?
The media has been sensationalizing things like Columbine - often times
going overboard with coverage. Examples: Live coverage of the funerals
of the Columbine victims. WHO CARES? Yeah, some people got shot, but
I found it HIGHLY unprofessional of CNN (among others) to televise such
a private and personal event. Interviewing people at the funeral? Sheesh!
Look at how much coverage things like Columbine, Oklahoma City, etc. have
received. Now look at how much coverage things like foeign policy get
covered. North Korea has agreed to trade with South Korea. Did that make
the news? No, but I can I read all about how the Democratic Convention
ended on a high note.
> Whats up attacking alcohol ads,
> you probably would like to have America go back to prohibition.
Actually, there was a movement back when I was in high school to get
cigarette and alcohol ads removed from poorer urban areas. The proponents
of this movement claimed that poor people were being unfairly targetted
by these companies, who wanted them to spend money on cigs and booze
instead of buying essential things like food and clothing.
Not sure what became of this, but I do remember riding the bus through
downtown Detroit and seeing nothing but booze and cigarette billboards -
all of which featured Black people. I wouldn't even start seeing White
people on billboards until I headed out of Detroit.
> Have you ever heard of the free press
Yes. Have you ever heard of professionalism? A professional reporter
does NOT run up to a grieving victim, stick a microphone in their face
and ask them on live TV what they're feeling right now.
> sheesh!--get rid of violent video games?
> Hell,for adults,many of the games don't have enough violence and gore,and
> sex.
Then I feel sorry for those "adults." Personally, I think some games
are too violent already.
Anyways, you missed the guy's original point. The REAL problem is not
guns, alcohol, sex, or even violent video games. The REAL problem is
that many parents today are unwilling to be involved with their child's
life. Too many parents are not aware of what their children are involved
with, and as a result, the children have no guidance in their lives.
Worse, instead of the parents actually trying to do something themselves,
they've asked the government to "protect" their children from things,
instead of taking the responsibility themselves.
Doug Jacobs
> You see *quite* a bit in "New Cutey Honey", moreso than several others.
> First she yells it, then she does it; "Honey Flash!". I don't know
> how you'd call those "similar guidelines".
Cutey Honey was a direct-to-video series in Japan. It was never shown
on Japanese TV, nor do I think it could be.
> As for the "mosaic", I'm talking about the filters applied to the
> *really* hentai stuff. I don't have any examples, because I don't
> actually own anything like that. I'm not interested in hentai.
Again, that sort of thing is not shown on TV.
There was a law at one time that made it illegal to show pubic hair or
genitals (regardless of the medium used) which led to all sorts of "work
arounds" being devised. The blurring/mosaic is one of them.
At any rate, such goods are clearly marked "18&Over" and are NOT sold
next to the latest weekly kiddie serial comics. Stores don't sell to
kids, and most kids know not to look at such things.
Charles Doane
Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> In rec.games.video.sony Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > You see *quite* a bit in "New Cutey Honey", moreso than several others.
> > First she yells it, then she does it; "Honey Flash!". I don't know
> > how you'd call those "similar guidelines".
>
> Cutey Honey was a direct-to-video series in Japan. It was never shown
> on Japanese TV, nor do I think it could be.
The Cutey Honey series was from the 1970's. New Cutey Honey, you're
right, it's an OAV series, however, it *did* come from a successful
TV series, the same as the Ranma 1/2 OAV's. It's much the same as
a TV series hitting the box office (i.e. Star Trek), but it's still
a TV series, regardless.
I've only got the first 4 New Cutey Honey OAV's, so my 'exposure' is
a bit limited, but what exactly does New Cutey Honey show that isn't
in Ranma 1/2's TV series? They're both comedic about the nudity, and
neither is especially prurient.
> > As for the "mosaic", I'm talking about the filters applied to the
> > *really* hentai stuff. I don't have any examples, because I don't
> > actually own anything like that. I'm not interested in hentai.
>
> Again, that sort of thing is not shown on TV.
Oh, puhleaze. I've seen the *exact* same thing on "COPS" when the
arrestee was buck-naked. Yup, mosaic over the T&A, IRL, USA.
Of *course* it's shown on TV.
Pornography is about *intent*, not *content*.
> There was a law at one time that made it illegal to show pubic hair or
> genitals (regardless of the medium used) which led to all sorts of "work
> arounds" being devised. The blurring/mosaic is one of them.
That was actually part of the Missouri treaty, signed by the Japanese in
an unconditional surrender at the end of WWII. It wasn't so much a law
as it was an attempt to Americanize our one-time enemy.
American advisors, sent to Japan, were shocked at the very idea of
"Geisha", or women who were trained to serve and pleasure men.
They were considered to be whores, but it really wasn't the same
thing, it was just treated as the same thing by a conquering USA.
Part of the Japanese culture died because of that. Geisha is now
a whore in Western eyes, and while the feminists might be happy
and the Judeo-Christian types think that they've wiped out a sin,
the fact of the matter is that a skilled art is practically lost.
Women *are* interested in pleasing men, any glance at a grocery
checkout counter will show teasers about what men like in the
women's mags. The opposite is just as true, the men's magazines tell
men how to appeal to women.
Geisha had it down to an art form. That's one of the worst casualties
of WWII.
> At any rate, such goods are clearly marked "18&Over" and are NOT sold
> next to the latest weekly kiddie serial comics. Stores don't sell to
> kids, and most kids know not to look at such things.
Look, I've seen "Sailor Moon" fansubbed, as well as the three movies
fansubbed, subbed, and dubbed. That's shoujo, it's considered kiddie
fare in Japan. You aren't going to convince me that Japan shelters
the kiddies from the facts of life on par with USA efforts, which are
protectionism to a fault.
You are correct in this; A Japanese child, told not to do something, is
not very likely to do it. This is the result of a culture which puts
respect above self, and which puts honor above all.
An American child, told not to do something, immediately sets about
figuring a way to get away with doing it. This is the result of a
culture which puts self above all else, and which excuses those caught
in dishonor as a victim of circumstance.
IRON56
> not very likely to do it. This is the result of a culture which puts
> respect above self, and which puts honor above all.
>
> An American child, told not to do something, immediately sets about
> figuring a way to get away with doing it. This is the result of a
> culture which puts self above all else, and which excuses those caught
> in dishonor as a victim of circumstance.
>
Just like you killing endangered and protected animals, then looking around
to see if anybody was watching. You -know- you're doing wrong, breaking the
law, yet you still do it and try to be sneaky about it. Pansy.
Charles Doane
IRON56 wrote:
<total snip>
Just an annual reminder that I don't reply to Keith Fulkerson, aka
IRON56, aka VOLE, because he's a troll, a moron, and a horrid
excuse for humanity. He responds to me because he likes me.
I don't respond to him because he's a pathetic stalker.
See you next year, Keith. Keep on sniffing my ass hoping for
another response.
am
Doug Jacobs <dja...@tsoft.com> wrote in message
news:spu0ip...@corp.supernews.com...
maybe
> > 100 or 200 years ago?
>
****Cute comeback,but not very funny--my point still stands--quite blaming
other entities ghosts or voices in your head for the act of violence---just
blame you.
video games are not going to promote someone to kill,unless the person is a
wack in the first place,and wants to use whatever they can as an excuse to
get off the hook,or to gain sympathy.
On to the next point.
>
> > Back then,the public would have a man hunt,and take care of him the way
the
> > laws of the land demand,----without putting blame somewhere else!!!!!
>
> Sometimes, yes. Othertimes, they'd say the devil made them do it. Read
> about the Salem Witch Trials sometime. Have things really changed that
> much?
****Uh!??!---What planet are you from,and do you just realize you are making
my point for me?
Imagine you and jerry being on the board of judges that claims to the video
game industry that some of your games you produce are tooooooo violent.
Sorry to say this,but you and jerry are of the same wack thinking!
You want to be controlled,and to control others if they offer something you
think is too harsh or violent for the public.---Let the individual decide
for him/herself--please.Keep it fun,and keep it free(in regards to gaming
r/d)
>
> > And what is with blaming the media on reporting a violent event.
> > It is something that happened,and people will want to hear about it.
> > As if not reporting about world war 2,it wouldn't have happened in the
first
> > place,right?
>
> The media has been sensationalizing things like Columbine - often times
> going overboard with coverage. Examples: Live coverage of the funerals
> of the Columbine victims. WHO CARES? Yeah, some people got shot, but
> I found it HIGHLY unprofessional of CNN (among others) to televise such
> a private and personal event. Interviewing people at the funeral?
Sheesh!
>
> Look at how much coverage things like Columbine, Oklahoma City, etc. have
> received. Now look at how much coverage things like foeign policy get
> covered. North Korea has agreed to trade with South Korea. Did that make
> the news? No, but I can I read all about how the Democratic Convention
> ended on a high note.
*****Here is the great part of it,if it is offensive too you don't watch
news.
I catch news avery once in a while when i feel the urge,other than that,who
cares if people continue to kill each other in the middle east--they have
been at it for thousands of years,and showing concern over it does little.
About the school shootings,they make big news because many people have
children in schools,and many people are interested in it.
But to give a national story back page while a bus getting bombed in middle
east and kills 20 people gets front page?Who cares.
>
> > Whats up attacking alcohol ads,
> > you probably would like to have America go back to prohibition.
>
> Actually, there was a movement back when I was in high school to get
> cigarette and alcohol ads removed from poorer urban areas. The proponents
> of this movement claimed that poor people were being unfairly targetted
> by these companies, who wanted them to spend money on cigs and booze
> instead of buying essential things like food and clothing.
>
> Not sure what became of this, but I do remember riding the bus through
> downtown Detroit and seeing nothing but booze and cigarette billboards -
> all of which featured Black people. I wouldn't even start seeing White
> people on billboards until I headed out of Detroit.
*******So,what you are saying is most people are weak minded fools that
cannot think for themselves?I rarely notice billboards--except the funny
ones that catch my eye!
This is just another point you try to make that would lead me to believe
that you want to be controlled,and want to have free enterprize under major
control.
>
> > Have you ever heard of the free press
>
> Yes. Have you ever heard of professionalism? A professional reporter
> does NOT run up to a grieving victim, stick a microphone in their face
> and ask them on live TV what they're feeling right now.
>
*******Who instructed the reporter to get the scoop,maybe the
boss/owner/manager of the network?
If the network offends,use your free speech,and bitch to them about it,and
let them know you will not tune into their channel anymore!
> > sheesh!--get rid of violent video games?
> > Hell,for adults,many of the games don't have enough violence and
gore,and
> > sex.
>
> Then I feel sorry for those "adults." Personally, I think some games
> are too violent already.
*******That's great for you,but I would love to see the free market
determine what is accepted,and what is rejected.
If sega came out with a horror/gore game called "jack the ripper",and the
game play puts you in the game as the ripper him/herself,what would you
think.
Would you go out on your witch hunt and try to stop the bad sega people for
making such a sick and twisted game?
Personally,I just wouldn't buy the game if I was not interested,and move on
with my life,not thinking twice about that "bad game that sega made".
>
> Anyways, you missed the guy's original point. The REAL problem is not
> guns, alcohol, sex, or even violent video games. The REAL problem is
> that many parents today are unwilling to be involved with their child's
> life. Too many parents are not aware of what their children are involved
> with, and as a result, the children have no guidance in their lives.
> Worse, instead of the parents actually trying to do something themselves,
> they've asked the government to "protect" their children from things,
> instead of taking the responsibility themselves.
******Finishing up,I did not miss the guys point,nor any of yours,as both of
you scream of needs for censorship and/or banning.
Most people know that around the world,nations must face their downfalls,but
one thing should reign supreme---personal responsibility.
Keep the gaming industry as open and free as possible,let them decide what
types of games to produce,only then will you be guaranteed the best possible
gaming experience!!
Doug Jacobs
> The Cutey Honey series was from the 1970's. New Cutey Honey, you're
> right, it's an OAV series, however, it *did* come from a successful
> TV series, the same as the Ranma 1/2 OAV's. It's much the same as
> a TV series hitting the box office (i.e. Star Trek), but it's still
> a TV series, regardless.
I don't know much about the original Cutey Honey series, but I don't
think they had full-frontal nudity :) (Then again, Go Nagai wasn't known
for being a conformist.. :)
> I've only got the first 4 New Cutey Honey OAV's, so my 'exposure' is
> a bit limited, but what exactly does New Cutey Honey show that isn't
> in Ranma 1/2's TV series? They're both comedic about the nudity, and
> neither is especially prurient.
I'll wager that Cutey Honey has more nudity than Ranma 1/2. Yes, there
is nudity in Ranma 1/2 and it was shown on TV - at 4pm, in fact. The
Japanese don't have a problem with minor incidental nudity.
> Oh, puhleaze. I've seen the *exact* same thing on "COPS" when the
> arrestee was buck-naked. Yup, mosaic over the T&A, IRL, USA.
> Of *course* it's shown on TV.
> Pornography is about *intent*, not *content*.
Eh? I DON'T think Cops shows people having sex...
You're not going to find Urotsukidoji on TV in Japan, and even on the
Japanese videos you're going to find the same mosaic/editting.
> That was actually part of the Missouri treaty, signed by the Japanese in
> an unconditional surrender at the end of WWII. It wasn't so much a law
> as it was an attempt to Americanize our one-time enemy.
Yeah, I know. The US also tried to get the Japanese kids to drink milk
in school. The people I met in Japan who were children at the time still
can't stand milk :)
> American advisors, sent to Japan, were shocked at the very idea of
> "Geisha", or women who were trained to serve and pleasure men.
> They were considered to be whores, but it really wasn't the same
> thing, it was just treated as the same thing by a conquering USA.
I don't think anyone's accused the US of having a clue when it comes
to other cultures... Ain't imperialism grand? :p
> You are correct in this; A Japanese child, told not to do something, is
> not very likely to do it. This is the result of a culture which puts
> respect above self, and which puts honor above all.
> An American child, told not to do something, immediately sets about
> figuring a way to get away with doing it. This is the result of a
> culture which puts self above all else, and which excuses those caught
> in dishonor as a victim of circumstance.
While there are differences, I've found that kids are kids no matter
where they are :) They often think school is boring, don't like doing
homework, don't like vegetables, and think their parents make too many
rules.
As an example, one father I knew wouldn't buy video games for his son. He
felt they were a waste of money. So, the son decided to wait for New Years
and use his gift money to buy a gameboy. The father foresaw this, and had
the relatives only give gift certificates for bookstores. :) The son got
the last shot in by using the certificates to buy nothing but comics.
IRON56
>
>
> IRON56 wrote:
>
> <total snip>
>
Pansy.
> Just an annual reminder that I don't reply to Keith Fulkerson, aka
> IRON56, aka VOLE, because he's a troll, a moron, and a horrid
> excuse for humanity.
You just described yourself again, pansy. Kicked any animals lately?
>He responds to me because he likes me.
Wishful thinking, Gena. Unlike you, I'm into women.
> I don't respond to him because he's a pathetic stalker.
You just replied, fatboy.
> See you next year, Keith. Keep on sniffing my ass hoping for
> another response.
>
You and your sick fantasies...
> --
> Novus ordo seclorum (Latin)- "A new liar of the ages"
> Motto on the reverse of Droane's shirt.
Jerry
You know, you keep saying that I have some wack thinking... I never said
that the government should be telling people what they can and can not play
when it comes to video games. What I said was, was that the government
would like to believe, and have us believe, that what is causing all the
problems in our youth's lives are violent video games, when in fact it is
not the case. The problem runs much deeper....to the family roots!
As far as video game violence goes, some games are extremely violent, and
although some stores enforce the ratings and don't let young children buy
games like Duke Nukem, etc.... others don't. So the ratings are just for
show really, it is still up to the parent's to make sure their children are
not doing something they should not be doing. And the parents want to put
that off to someone else, so if something goes wrong, they can sue, or
blame the other guy.
If you don't think video games are violent enough, then it is you, my
friend that have wacked out thinking!!!
Charles Doane
Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> In rec.games.video.sony Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > The Cutey Honey series was from the 1970's. New Cutey Honey, you're
> > right, it's an OAV series, however, it *did* come from a successful
> > TV series, the same as the Ranma 1/2 OAV's. It's much the same as
> > a TV series hitting the box office (i.e. Star Trek), but it's still
> > a TV series, regardless.
>
> I don't know much about the original Cutey Honey series, but I don't
> think they had full-frontal nudity :) (Then again, Go Nagai wasn't known
> for being a conformist.. :)
The New Cutey Honey series doesn't really have full frontal nudity either,
not graphic anyway. Honey's transformation sequence (and occasional shower
scenes) are typically only a few seconds long and never shows pudendum.
It's not porno, and it's not even really hentai.
> > I've only got the first 4 New Cutey Honey OAV's, so my 'exposure' is
> > a bit limited, but what exactly does New Cutey Honey show that isn't
> > in Ranma 1/2's TV series? They're both comedic about the nudity, and
> > neither is especially prurient.
>
> I'll wager that Cutey Honey has more nudity than Ranma 1/2. Yes, there
> is nudity in Ranma 1/2 and it was shown on TV - at 4pm, in fact. The
> Japanese don't have a problem with minor incidental nudity.
I don't take bets because I despise gambling. There really isn't
anything worse in Cutey Honey than there is in Ranma 1/2. In fact,
Ranma 1/2's Happosai character is by far the worst perv compared to
New Cutey Honey's Grandpa Danbei. I'd call it a toss-up between the
two, myself. While there may not be any scenes with a dominatrix in
Ranma 1/2 (there are in New Cutey Honey), there's also no panty raids
in New Cutey Honey (but there are in Ranma 1/2).
> > Oh, puhleaze. I've seen the *exact* same thing on "COPS" when the
> > arrestee was buck-naked. Yup, mosaic over the T&A, IRL, USA.
> > Of *course* it's shown on TV.
> > Pornography is about *intent*, not *content*.
>
> Eh? I DON'T think Cops shows people having sex...
Neither does Ranma 1/2 or New Cutey Honey.
> You're not going to find Urotsukidoji on TV in Japan, and even on the
> Japanese videos you're going to find the same mosaic/editting.
I never saw that one. From the sounds of it, I wouldn't want to.
> > That was actually part of the Missouri treaty, signed by the Japanese in
> > an unconditional surrender at the end of WWII. It wasn't so much a law
> > as it was an attempt to Americanize our one-time enemy.
>
> Yeah, I know. The US also tried to get the Japanese kids to drink milk
> in school. The people I met in Japan who were children at the time still
> can't stand milk :)
Milk really isn't very good, so I can certainly understand why kids don't
like it. If you've ever been to a dairy and seen the process, you'd have
to wonder why anyone would want anything to do with that junk.
It has to be "Pasteurized" in order to be safe to drink, so it's not safe
right out of the cow. I don't believe it's very safe after the treatment
either, so I tend to avoid the stuff myself.
> > American advisors, sent to Japan, were shocked at the very idea of
> > "Geisha", or women who were trained to serve and pleasure men.
> > They were considered to be whores, but it really wasn't the same
> > thing, it was just treated as the same thing by a conquering USA.
>
> I don't think anyone's accused the US of having a clue when it comes
> to other cultures... Ain't imperialism grand? :p
You'd think that the USA, the "melting pot" nation with more immigrants
than any other country on the planet would know better. However, it seems
that the opposite is true. The USA doesn't have much tolerance for values
and culture other than it's own.
> > You are correct in this; A Japanese child, told not to do something, is
> > not very likely to do it. This is the result of a culture which puts
> > respect above self, and which puts honor above all.
>
> > An American child, told not to do something, immediately sets about
> > figuring a way to get away with doing it. This is the result of a
> > culture which puts self above all else, and which excuses those caught
> > in dishonor as a victim of circumstance.
>
> While there are differences, I've found that kids are kids no matter
> where they are :) They often think school is boring, don't like doing
> homework, don't like vegetables, and think their parents make too many
> rules.
The kids are kids, where the difference lies is in the parenting and in the
culture. For example, asian children tend to excel in school, and they are
far and away the most successful minority in the school system, in fact they
are often the very best. Why? It's not that they're smarter, it's the
culture. The child (and later, the adult) is expected to perform, and is
ashamed of failure. The parents support the success of the child.
> As an example, one father I knew wouldn't buy video games for his son. He
> felt they were a waste of money. So, the son decided to wait for New Years
> and use his gift money to buy a gameboy. The father foresaw this, and had
> the relatives only give gift certificates for bookstores. :) The son got
> the last shot in by using the certificates to buy nothing but comics.
In the USA, the kid would have just gotten the gameboy from the non-custodial
parent.
Doug Jacobs
> Doug Jacobs <dja...@tsoft.com> wrote in message
>> Sometimes, yes. Othertimes, they'd say the devil made them do it. Read
>> about the Salem Witch Trials sometime. Have things really changed that
>> much?
> ****Uh!??!---What planet are you from,and do you just realize you are making
> my point for me?
> Imagine you and jerry being on the board of judges that claims to the video
> game industry that some of your games you produce are tooooooo violent.
> Sorry to say this,but you and jerry are of the same wack thinking!
> You want to be controlled,and to control others if they offer something you
> think is too harsh or violent for the public.---Let the individual decide
> for him/herself--please.Keep it fun,and keep it free(in regards to gaming
> r/d)
What in the world are you talking about? You've *totally* misunderstood
me (and the other poster.) Neither of us are advocating censorship, new
laws, or anything like that. People have said that our society today would
rather blame their actions on someone else rather than take personal
responsibility.
That was my reason for bringing up "The Devil made me do it.", since
people have been trying to misplace blame for a long time.
The Witch Trials reference fits in this whole mess as well. First, it's
another example of people who didn't take responsibility for their actions.
Second, and more importantly, it shows how if we aren't careful, the best
of intentions can get way, way out of control.
> *****Here is the great part of it,if it is offensive too you don't watch
> news.
> I catch news avery once in a while when i feel the urge,other than that,who
> cares if people continue to kill each other in the middle east--they have
> been at it for thousands of years,and showing concern over it does little.
> About the school shootings,they make big news because many people have
> children in schools,and many people are interested in it.
> But to give a national story back page while a bus getting bombed in middle
> east and kills 20 people gets front page?Who cares.
I don't watch TV news anymore. That still doesn't change the way the whole
Columbine incident was covered.
>> Not sure what became of this, but I do remember riding the bus through
>> downtown Detroit and seeing nothing but booze and cigarette billboards -
>> all of which featured Black people. I wouldn't even start seeing White
>> people on billboards until I headed out of Detroit.
> *******So,what you are saying is most people are weak minded fools that
> cannot think for themselves?I rarely notice billboards--except the funny
> ones that catch my eye!
> This is just another point you try to make that would lead me to believe
> that you want to be controlled,and want to have free enterprize under major
> control.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I am NOT saying I want more government control.
> *******Who instructed the reporter to get the scoop,maybe the
> boss/owner/manager of the network?
Doesn't matter. I would think if a reporter thought something would
compromise his ideals, he wouldn't do it - even if under orders by his
boss.
> If the network offends,use your free speech,and bitch to them about it,and
> let them know you will not tune into their channel anymore!
As I said, I don't watch TV news anymore.
> ******Finishing up,I did not miss the guys point,nor any of yours,as both of
> you scream of needs for censorship and/or banning.
That is the complete OPPOSITE of what I've been saying.
> Most people know that around the world,nations must face their downfalls,but
> one thing should reign supreme---personal responsibility.
> Keep the gaming industry as open and free as possible,let them decide what
> types of games to produce,only then will you be guaranteed the best possible
> gaming experience!!
I'm not so sure about that... The game industry thinks we should be playing
'panty raider.' Feh, "mature gaming" indeed.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Sales figures don't lie. If a game tanks, that's the end of it.
I was talking about offensive games, not crappy ones. You can't say
the market will take care of offensive games on it's own because not
everyone agrees on what's offnesive.
> Of course the adults-only products won't sell, at least not enough to
> make a profit with.
Are you claiming the porn industry doesn't turn a profit? That's
absurd.
> That's basically what I'm saying. The videogame marketplace is the
> ultimate democracy. People vote with their dollars, and by such
> means, the people ultimately have control of the marketplace.
No, we've established before that the executives are firmly in control.
> The first Tomb Raider game was excellent. Top notch, a fantastic
> must-play game.
It was generally agreed that the follow ups were crap, yet they're
working on TR5. Clearly, the market failed to kepp these crappy games
from bing made.
> MKII was, imho, the best of the series and definitely worthy of
> playing, although it's no Street Fighter II or King of Fighters.
Yet, they made more and more, and crappy spin-offs as well. They were
gory and offended a lot of people as well. The market failed to keep
these games from being made.
> DOOM was a very good game, although I think it's falsely given the
> credit that Wolfenstein 3D truly deserves. No matter, both are ID
> games. There's nothing wrong with that game if you like FPS.
Yet, there are many crappy and offensive games that followed in their
wake. The market did not keep them in check.
> Panty Raider, that's a PC (computer, not Politically Correct)
> title, and so it's already lacking in redeeming features. I
> did see a copy in a store, but I don't play games on PC's.
That's a lie. You DO play PC games, you've admitted it on several
occasions. The fat remains that it is a crappy and offensive game, of
the sort which you CLAIMED the market would prevent on it's own.
> You see *quite* a bit in "New Cutey Honey", moreso than several
> others. First she yells it, then she does it; "Honey Flash!". I
> don't know how you'd call those "similar guidelines".
As was pointed out to you, this is not a TV show. TV in Japan has
guidelines as to what can be shown, just like we do in the US.
> Certainly. It's not censorship when the author plays by the rules.
Then ratings and V-chips are not censorship simply because they make
some creators self-censor themselves to try to capture a mainstream
audiance.
Steve
are being poured onto the ground.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:48:15 -0400, Torajima <seeb...@seebelow.com>
wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.4.05.1000816...@www.imagin.net>,
>Lee Rolfing <arl...@imagin.net> wrote:
>
>> The most violent game I own right now would have to be Bushido Blade,
>> Tenchu
>
><snip>
>
>Of course, all that spraying blood was ADDED to the American version of
>Tenchu...
>
>Personally, I thought it was totally un-realistic, and unneccesary as
>well.
>
>Torajima
Regards, Steve http://gameoverdude.com
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <399EAF76...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sales figures don't lie. If a game tanks, that's the end of it.
>
> I was talking about offensive games, not crappy ones. You can't say
> the market will take care of offensive games on it's own because not
> everyone agrees on what's offnesive.
Yes, there are things that everyone agrees is offensive, things which
simply don't make it into any mainstream videogame whatsoever. Rape,
for example, or bestiality for another. Torture is not typically well
received either. There are indeed things that the vast majority of
people do find offensive. Games aren't made for very small minorities
of pervs and psychos who are so far out of the mainstream that few
others share their tastes.
> > Of course the adults-only products won't sell, at least not enough to
> > make a profit with.
>
> Are you claiming the porn industry doesn't turn a profit? That's
> absurd.
The porn industry turns no profit in the field of console video games.
That's not absurd, it's a fact. I believe the last console to have
porn videogames was the 3DO, and they didn't help the 3DO very much.
> > That's basically what I'm saying. The videogame marketplace is the
> > ultimate democracy. People vote with their dollars, and by such
> > means, the people ultimately have control of the marketplace.
>
> No, we've established before that the executives are firmly in control.
The executives are not "firmly in control". Bernie Stolar was CEO of
Sega of America. Is he "firmly in control"? Nope, he's out on his
butt because executives serve at the whim of the shareholders.
Executives have one primary task, and that's to make the company
perform. They'll do so by any means necessary. Look no further than
Nintendo.
This is the SAME Nintendo which made Capcom change all of the female
villains in "Final Fight" to males, because Nintendo didn't want to
have a game where boys hit girls on their SNES.
This is the SAME Nintendo which made Midway change all of the blood
to white "sweat" drops in the game "Mortal Kombat", because Nintendo
didn't want to have a bloody game on their SNES.
They lost sales to the uncut Genesis versions both times. Guess
who released "Killer Instinct" a short while later? Yup. Nintendo.
Hitting girls and blood didn't seem so bad after Nintendo wanted
more software sales on their SNES.
The execs don't control the market. The consumers ultimately do.
> > The first Tomb Raider game was excellent. Top notch, a fantastic
> > must-play game.
>
> It was generally agreed that the follow ups were crap, yet they're
> working on TR5. Clearly, the market failed to kepp these crappy games
> from bing made.
You misunderstand how the market works. The point isn't prevention.
No one wants to prevent a videogame from being made, at least not
anyone that doesn't think like a censor (ie. Joe Lieberman).
Eidos will get the point that Tomb Raider is going down the toilet,
and do one of three things. They'll stop making the series, they'll
make the series better again, or they'll lose money.
> > MKII was, imho, the best of the series and definitely worthy of
> > playing, although it's no Street Fighter II or King of Fighters.
>
> Yet, they made more and more, and crappy spin-offs as well. They were
> gory and offended a lot of people as well. The market failed to keep
> these games from being made.
The people who were offended by Mortal Kombat were typically not gamers,
so what they think about it doesn't matter at all. It's not their
market, they aren't participating in it and so they have nothing to say
which makes even a slight bit of difference to the market.
The market made it lucrative to make Mortal Kombat games, to the point
that every major console has an MK game on it.
> > DOOM was a very good game, although I think it's falsely given the
> > credit that Wolfenstein 3D truly deserves. No matter, both are ID
> > games. There's nothing wrong with that game if you like FPS.
>
> Yet, there are many crappy and offensive games that followed in their
> wake. The market did not keep them in check.
Not very many on consoles, however. The PC market is a different
animal.
> > Panty Raider, that's a PC (computer, not Politically Correct)
> > title, and so it's already lacking in redeeming features. I
> > did see a copy in a store, but I don't play games on PC's.
>
> That's a lie. You DO play PC games, you've admitted it on several
> occasions. The fat remains that it is a crappy and offensive game, of
> the sort which you CLAIMED the market would prevent on it's own.
Markets aren't about prevention. How can a market prevent a game
which it has no knowledge of? After all, the market didn't prevent
Firestone from selling shred-o-matic tires, but Firestone will be
feeling the pinch from that for quite a while.
<snip>
> > Certainly. It's not censorship when the author plays by the rules.
>
> Then ratings and V-chips are not censorship simply because they make
> some creators self-censor themselves to try to capture a mainstream
> audiance.
Yes, it is censorship because the ratings, not the audience, are
defining what is "mainstream" and what isn't. The V-chip is likewise
defining what is mainstream. That is certainly censorship.
That power is no longer the property of the author or of the audience,
but rather to a third party. That's what censorship is.
am
> In rec.games.video.sony am <adam...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> > Doug Jacobs <dja...@tsoft.com> wrote in message
>
Read
> >> about the Salem Witch Trials sometime. Have things really changed that
> >> much?
>
> > ****Uh!??!---What planet are you from,and do you just realize you are
making
> > my point for me?
> > Imagine you and jerry being on the board of judges that claims to the
video
> > game industry that some of your games you produce are tooooooo violent.
> > Sorry to say this,but you and jerry are of the same wack thinking!
> > You want to be controlled,and to control others if they offer something
you
> > think is too harsh or violent for the public.---Let the individual
decide
> > for him/herself--please.Keep it fun,and keep it free(in regards to
gaming
> > r/d)
>
> me (and the other poster.) Neither of us are advocating censorship, new
> laws, or anything like that. People have said that our society today
would
> rather blame their actions on someone else rather than take personal
> responsibility.
>
> That was my reason for bringing up "The Devil made me do it.", since
> people have been trying to misplace blame for a long time.
>
> The Witch Trials reference fits in this whole mess as well. First, it's
> another example of people who didn't take responsibility for their
actions.
>
> Second, and more importantly, it shows how if we aren't careful, the best
> of intentions can get way, way out of control.
>
>
> > news.
> > I catch news avery once in a while when i feel the urge,other than
that,who
> > cares if people continue to kill each other in the middle east--they
have
> > been at it for thousands of years,and showing concern over it does
little.
> > About the school shootings,they make big news because many people have
> > children in schools,and many people are interested in it.
> > But to give a national story back page while a bus getting bombed in
middle
> > east and kills 20 people gets front page?Who cares.
>
whole
> Columbine incident was covered.
>
> >> downtown Detroit and seeing nothing but booze and cigarette
billboards -
> >> all of which featured Black people. I wouldn't even start seeing White
> >> people on billboards until I headed out of Detroit.
>
> > *******So,what you are saying is most people are weak minded fools that
> > cannot think for themselves?I rarely notice billboards--except the funny
> > ones that catch my eye!
> > This is just another point you try to make that would lead me to believe
> > that you want to be controlled,and want to have free enterprize under
major
> > control.
>
>
> I am NOT saying I want more government control.
>
> > boss/owner/manager of the network?
>
> compromise his ideals, he wouldn't do it - even if under orders by his
> boss.
>
it,and
> > let them know you will not tune into their channel anymore!
>
>
both of
> > you scream of needs for censorship and/or banning.
>
>
downfalls,but
> > one thing should reign supreme---personal responsibility.
>
> > Keep the gaming industry as open and free as possible,let them decide
what
> > types of games to produce,only then will you be guaranteed the best
possible
> > gaming experience!!
>
playing
> 'panty raider.' Feh, "mature gaming" indeed.
Your closing states "I'm not so sure about that" pretty much sums up why I
posted a response at all.
Who cares what type of games are being produced,if the panty raid down to
the boring strategy are what sells,then the gaming industry should be able
to r/d any game they want.
I would think most gamers would want the largest types of games
available,total kiddie games on up to the hard-core adult games.
Keep it free
Tempora
>
<snip>
> Milk really isn't very good, so I can certainly understand why kids don't
> like it. If you've ever been to a dairy and seen the process, you'd have
> to wonder why anyone would want anything to do with that junk.
> It has to be "Pasteurized" in order to be safe to drink, so it's not safe
> right out of the cow. I don't believe it's very safe after the treatment
> either, so I tend to avoid the stuff myself.
>
Since this thread is already so out there in terms of "ontopic-ness," I'll
reply to this.
The cow's milk that people drink have to be pasteurized and homogenized not
becuase it isn't safe, but because the milk actually touches the air when it
comes out of the cow and into the container, and the fact that it has to be
stored for periods of days. I mean, you never see a mother (of any species,
not just humans) pasteurizing and homogenizing her own breast milk before
giving it to the baby during breastfeeding, since the milk is going straight
into the baby's mouth and it's drunk right then and there. Oh man, this is
weird talk for videogame groups...
Doug Jacobs
> The porn industry turns no profit in the field of console video games.
> That's not absurd, it's a fact. I believe the last console to have
> porn videogames was the 3DO, and they didn't help the 3DO very much.
Wasn't it one of these 3DO games that caused an uproar, leading to the
current game ratings system we have today?
Charles Doane
Not really. The credit (blame) for that lays at the feet of "Night Trap",
which was on PC, Sega CD and 3DO. I have the 3DO version of that game.
Senator Lieberman caught wind of it, and was promptly offended. Why,
there's a camera in the bathroom, in a house full of nubile girls in
nightgowns! Oh, the horror! It's basically a "B" horror flick which
gives the player controls of cameras and traps to capture blood-sucking
vampires called "Augers", who stalk the young girls (it has Dana Plato,
of "Different Strokes) in order to, well, suck their blood.
That game triggered senate hearings into videogame violence, and started
the chain of events resulting in the ESRB. There's really *nothing* in
Night Trap that I could imagine pushing it past a "T" rating if the ESRB
were to get ahold of it today as a republication.
What's *really* going to stir up the hornets nest next time is going to
be the PS2, and not because it's a videogame console. It's a DVD player,
and porno (even somewhat interactive porno) is available on DVD.
Wait until Ma and Pa walk in on their precious little "turnkey" child
and see him getting women to take off their clothes with the controller.
DVD already does that, and PS2 is looking to put DVD into the kiddies
room. That should be an interesting collision of technologies, but if
Lieberman is VP, it'll devastate Sony and the DVD industry because the
censors can finally argue that DVD and Sony are targetting children for
porno.
Charles Doane
Tempora wrote:
>
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:39A008E4...@primenet.com...
> >
> <snip>
> > Milk really isn't very good, so I can certainly understand why kids don't
> > like it. If you've ever been to a dairy and seen the process, you'd have
> > to wonder why anyone would want anything to do with that junk.
> > It has to be "Pasteurized" in order to be safe to drink, so it's not safe
> > right out of the cow. I don't believe it's very safe after the treatment
> > either, so I tend to avoid the stuff myself.
> >
>
> Since this thread is already so out there in terms of "ontopic-ness," I'll
> reply to this.
> The cow's milk that people drink have to be pasteurized and homogenized not
> becuase it isn't safe, but because the milk actually touches the air when it
> comes out of the cow and into the container, and the fact that it has to be
> stored for periods of days. I mean, you never see a mother (of any species,
> not just humans) pasteurizing and homogenizing her own breast milk before
> giving it to the baby during breastfeeding, since the milk is going straight
> into the baby's mouth and it's drunk right then and there. Oh man, this is
> weird talk for videogame groups...
You *do* realize that pasteurizing is basically cooking, right?
The reason mothers don't do that is because boiling the mammaries would likely
be a bit on the painful side. It would make the milk safer, though.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, there are things that everyone agrees is offensive, things which
> simply don't make it into any mainstream videogame whatsoever.
No, there is no such agreement, and so you can't count on the market to
keep "offensive" material out of games.
> Rape, for example, or bestiality for another. Torture is not
> typically well received either.
I wouldn't swear to it, but I think rape has appeared in games, or at
least the implication of it. Torture shows up pretty often.
> The porn industry turns no profit in the field of console video games.
> That's not absurd, it's a fact. I believe the last console to have
> porn videogames was the 3DO, and they didn't help the 3DO very much.
As was pointed out to you before, the Saturn had adult titles in
Japan. I'd be very surprised if the PSX didn't.
> The executives are not "firmly in control".
They certainly are. If they choose not to release something, we'll
never have our chance to "vote" with our dollars. Hardly the
"democracy" you claim it is...
> You misunderstand how the market works. The point isn't prevention.
> No one wants to prevent a videogame from being made, at least not
> anyone that doesn't think like a censor (ie. Joe Lieberman).
> Eidos will get the point that Tomb Raider is going down the toilet,
> and do one of three things. They'll stop making the series, they'll
> make the series better again, or they'll lose money.
Nope. They haven't stopped making games, they haven't made them
better, and they're still selling. The market can't keep bad games
from being made, because a good ad campaign will make people buy crap,
and it can't keep offensive games from being made because there is no
overall agreement as to just what is offensive.
> The market made it lucrative to make Mortal Kombat games, to the point
> that every major console has an MK game on it.
Yet they are offensive to many, and generally regarded as fairly
mediocre games. The market didn't stop them from being made.
> Markets aren't about prevention. How can a market prevent a game
> which it has no knowledge of?
Very simple. If the market worked as you claim it does, series like TR
would either improve or lose enough money that we wouldn't see another
sequel. Neither of these things happen very often. If the market
worked like you claim it does, we wouldn't see the Gameboy with it's
moutain of crap crush a far superior system solely because of superior
marketing and name recognition.
> Yes, it is censorship because the ratings, not the audience, are
> defining what is "mainstream" and what isn't. The V-chip is likewise
> defining what is mainstream. That is certainly censorship.
No, not at all. If the creators choose to bow down to the almighty
dollar and self-censor themselves, that's their decision. That's not
censorship.
> That power is no longer the property of the author or of the audience,
> but rather to a third party.
The power is most certainly in the hands of the author and audiance.
It's up to them to decide what sort of product to make, and up to us to
decide if we want to buy it.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> DVD already does that, and PS2 is looking to put DVD into the kiddies
> room. That should be an interesting collision of technologies, but if
> Lieberman is VP, it'll devastate Sony and the DVD industry because the
> censors can finally argue that DVD and Sony are targetting children
> for porno.
Such an argument would be laughed out of court, of course. It's not
like children don't have access to DVD players already. Keep your
paranoia to yourself.