Twenty-five Years at the Heart of Gaming

Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by Sheetrock · 2004-03-02 06:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

I get the feeling that anyone who grew up playing early video games gets a real sense of disgust at seeing the level of depravity present in today's titles. Compared to games like Adventure or Pitfall today's electronic entertainment is a veritable pornography of violence, where vile acts are rendered in detail to a young audience.

Blasting invaders from space is one thing; a game that lets you steal a car and run over the owner or murder prostitutes is over the line. It increases the allure of immoral behavior and blurs the line between right and wrong to an unacceptable degree in a society that is already plagued with people who cannot accept responsibility for themselves.

--

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.

Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-02 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

nothing wrong with porn, porn never hurt anyone. violence on the other hand is a danger to sociaty. i'm offended at the violence that was in the super bowl. i was displeased with the breast, it wasn't a good breast, it looked like something from PBS. but i wasn't offended by it.

note, i didn't actually watch the super bowl, its a violent game!
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by wesman83 · 2004-03-02 06:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know plenty of people who play violent games and dont commit "crimes"... this means there is something else at work if it insprires people to kill people and steal cars. dont take away my freedoms because some kid has problems and cant handle the game... spend your energy to help the kids who grow up in poor homes and upbringings.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by Brahmastra · 2004-03-02 06:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why blame video games? There have been video games, TV Shows, books, music, etc with violent themes for a long time now. Children in countries outside the US play the same games and watch the same movies but don't go around killing each other. The leaders of the US don't think twice about bombing and killing 1000s of civilians. If one's elected leaders set an example of mass murder, why blame video games, media, rock music, etc for violence in society? Violence in society is just a reflection of the example set by the adults in the society. When you have a bunch of adults who wank off over war and weapons, don't expect the kids to turn out any better.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by poot_rootbeer · 2004-03-02 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Compared to games like Adventure or Pitfall today's electronic entertainment is a veritable pornography of violence, where vile acts are rendered in detail to a young audience.

I'm sure pinball enthusiasts were saying all the same things about Death Race 25 years ago...
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by clandaith · 2004-03-02 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

This isn't meant to be a troll post, but hasn't every generation said this about the newest generation? I remember my parents being concerned at the violence in the video games I was playign in the early 80's.

My parents told me stories when their parents were concerned about the music that they were listening to.

I'm not a fan of GTA, nor any of the games that are similar. I'm not tring to defend GTA. I just think that we are too quick to say that it is because of the video games in our childrens lives that cause them to became so desensitized to the world.

Just my thoughts. Flame suit is on.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by stratjakt · 2004-03-02 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

...to a young audience.

But it's NOT a young audience. The audience has grown up.

Links even a year or two old, I saw more recent demographics from neilson that had even more in the 18-25 category.

Anyhow, fact is, the big money is in that 18-25 year old male demographic. That's where the money is.

GTA has an M rating. Parents know what this means.

The old-school plots and family-friendly characters are still around in droves. Sonic, Mario, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Rayman, etc, etc..

But the simple fact is, that now there is a very large adult audience for video games. Those of us who grew up playing Adventure and Pitfall are still around, just older.

GTAs appeal was its immersive environment and sense of humor, btw, not simply over-the-top violence, titles of which are a dime a dozen.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by southpolesammy · 2004-03-02 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't be so naive. The difference between then and now is the level of detail and interactivity that is now capable. I grew up playing D&D with friends because there weren't any computer games available that involved the level of detail, imagery, and interaction that those games provided. Now, games like Neverwinter Nights have this and more. And D&D was never a poster child for being sweet and innocuous.

Besides, books have had this level of detail for far longer than video games have had, and you never hear parents tell their kids to "put that book down and go play GTA" (although there is the whole "Catcher in the Rye" debate, but that's probably past the memory of most readers here).

If anything, we're guilty of relying on these games to provide the experience for us rather than use our own imagination to create it for ourselves.

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by Johnny_Law · 2004-03-02 06:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Blasting invaders from space is one thing; a game that lets you steal a car and run over the owner or murder prostitutes is over the line.

This logic is kind of disappointing. The parent and the article take issue with violence in games; however, Pitfall Harry being eaten by an alligator in low resolution or the mass shootings taking place on the "show" 'Smash TV' somehow make it an acceptable form of violence?

Is not a killing or "murder" always violent and a death someone's "life" regardless of the quality level of the image?

I find it a tad hypocritical to suggest the violence in NARC was acceptable because your character was "justified"; while the violence in GTA is an affront to society because the lead character is a "villain".

Violence is violence regardless of the level or the one perpetrating the act. The real point is to remember that you are playing a game.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by WatFiv · 2004-03-02 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I get the feeling that anyone who grew up playing early video games gets a real sense of disgust at seeing the level of depravity present in today's titles.
What? The guy who made "Smash T.V." and who spends the majority of this article gleefully describing how much of a good person he is by making video games that encourage almost genocidal levels of violence against brown people (sorry... "terrorists", because we know how well fleshed out the bad guys in all his video games are likely to be) is against "vile acts... rendered in detail to a young audience?"

Does it stike anyone else what a hypocritical fuck this guy is? He's not against advocating massive, cruel forms of violence in his video games--he just wants a hollow, conservative, Reganesque (his words) justification for doing it, which apparently "Grand Theft Auto" doesn't neatly provide.

This is whitewashing morals to a disgusting degree--the games he's making aren't any less violent or graphic than Grand Theft Auto--it's just more ok if you say "you're defending your country!" at the beginning of the game before you start the slaughter. What bullshit.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by screwballicus · 2004-03-02 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am furthermore of the opinion that creativity has somewhat been drained from video games as realism has taken over as the criterion for quality. Not always, but often. The overall objective "let's make it like real life" doesn't imply the necessity for creative vision in the same way that "let's make it fun" does. Photographic realism doesn't necessitate creativity in the same way that an empty pallete does. And the time of ultra-low resolution pixel-art was the epitome of the empty palette for video game development.

Yes, modern games involve a creative process of many times the scale of original games like space invaders.

But these original games, I think, involved a much more precise attention to the most basic of human aesthetic needs and interface requirements than modern ones. That's because they were working through a much deeper level of abstraction. When control along two dimensions is the sole source of interactivity within the game, the honing of that dynamic to perfection is absolutely critical. When a character consists of only 40 pixels, the significance of each of those pixels becomes tangible.

Also in question is WHY it is that photo-realism is necessary to the gratification involved in video gaming. For whatever reason, whether it can be explained or not, the Dragon Warrior character of Nintendo fame had as great significance to me, at that time, as modern characters do in our time. Even any given higher level enemy ship I'd fight in Parsec on the TI 99/4A would become serious dinner conversation with my fellow players, among family and friends. So I know I'm not at all unique in that. I know that others experienced an appreciable level of immersion in those days. Can that be easily explained? I'm not sure, but there's no question that it was the case.

And so perhaps the classic video games have in retrospect some of the qualities of something like very early film, where every variable in the product's limited resources gained momentus significance, and attention to their refinement perfected their use.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by happyfrogcow · 2004-03-02 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

but hasn't every generation said this about the newest generation?

Probably. Who is to say they weren't right? Is out society better/safer than it was 30 years ago? 60 years ago? 90 years ago? Were kids getting killed in schools, or on the way to and from school 90 years ago? There were big societal advancements, such as the legal desegregation of schools, and a higher availability of basic education. But the amount of violence is scarey, i'd hate to be in highschool these days. Teenagers can be dangerous, they're just old enough to be able to inflict serious harm to others, and young enough to possibly not understand the full consequences.

Seeing violence every day in the games they play can't possibly be good, can it? Seeing women objectified without realizing the consquences and effects it has on the women can't be good, can it?
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by FictionPimp · 2004-03-02 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly, the problem isn't video games. Its parents who dont belive they should have to have any form of interaction with their kids. I grew up with D&D, quake, duke nukem, and tons of war games. I am fine. My parents made a point of explaining the difference between fantasy and reality. Fantasy was me ninja kicking down the small tree outside. Reality was me doing hard labor in the yard for 6 straight weekends to pay for that tree.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by kfg · 2004-03-02 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh we got trouble, right here in River City. They'll be listening to ragtime, talkin' about horse race gamblin'. Not a wholesome old trottin' race, no! But a race where they sit right down on the horse! Like to see some stuck up jockey boy sittin' on Dan Patch, make your blood boil.

Mass hysteria!

Yeah, we've been here and done this before. Strauss's waltzes, now virtually the epitome of staid music for old people, was once considered the ultimate in youthful depravity. The violin and the pennywhistle were banned by the church at one time as being depraved instruments because women were unable to resist their allure and might be prone to wiggle to their tunes.

On the other hand beating up a temple whore would have been considered a holy act in the right time and place. Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.

Depravity depends a good deal on the mind viewing the act. In the words of Tom Lehrer, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."

Worrying about virtual depravity is silly. If anything it acts, on the whole, as an outlet and thus prevents more meatspace depravity then it could ever cause.

But you can't point to events that didn't happen so the one nutcase who does something becomes a big deal.

KFG
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by Golias · 2004-03-02 07:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is out society better/safer than it was 30 years ago? 60 years ago? 90 years ago?
Yes, yes, and yes.
No matter what Jon Katz and Michael Moore would like you to believe, your chance of getting brutally killed in or around an American school is far lower today than any of those three periods you just mentioned.
If nothing else, it's a radically safer time to be a minority in America now compared to back when lynchings were commonplace.
Seeing violence every day in the games they play can't possibly be good, can it? Seeing women objectified without realizing the consquences and effects it has on the women can't be good, can it?
Good point. Those dime novels of the 1910s, B movies of the 1940s, and exploitation movies of the 1970s were... oh, you were talking about entertainment of today? Yes, shocking. Very shocking. Almost, but not quite, as violent and sexest as entertainment from previous generations.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by SnappleMaster · 2004-03-02 08:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Is out society better/safer than it was 30 years ago? 60 years ago? 90 years ago?"

Well, yeah actually I think it is. Sure there's a ton of stuff wrong with society today but the further you go back in history the more freaking awful things you run into.

Epidemics, the cold war, world wars, witch burnings, the crusades, massive religious persecution, etc. etc. etc.

History is not the happy fun place we like to think it was!

--
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by AeroIllini · 2004-03-02 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hopefully, it is not that harmful, but I suspect that gleeful killing of innocents may not be a good thing to practice in a fantasy setting. Can you state unequivically that your mental state is unaffected by it?

No, I can't, but I also can't say that my "mental state" is uneffected by other forms of media as well: movies, television, books, etc. The difference is that I am mature enough to handle the difference between fantasy and reality. Parenting is about knowing what your child has access to and helping them to know that difference. Part of knowing what they have access to is paying attention to the various rating systems for video games, movies, and television shows (none yet for books, but that's what librarians are for: recommending quality reading material for your children).

...I don't play GTA and I don't let my kids play rated M games.

That's a good philosophy. I wouldn't let my kids play M-rated games, either, if I had kids. What I find offensive about parents who try to decry video games based on content is that they act like the rating system isn't even there. Apparently rating a game "Mature - 17+" means that it's not the parents' fault if their 6-year-old is playing it. Parents don't complain about R rated movies, because they know that the movies are only for mature audiences, who can handle the themes without emulating them.

Perhaps it's time for the ESRB to change their rating scheme to match that of the movies, since many parents don't seem to get it. Parents apparently already know what G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 stand for and mean, but they are clueless about EC, E, T, M, and AO, which mean exactly the same things. It's a 1:1 translation.

--
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Re:Not the only person against Grand Theft Auto by Golias · 2004-03-02 09:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

So perhaps there is no actual weight to this 'outcry' over violent media. Perhaps it is motivated by something other than legitimate concern for society?
I'm one of those "never ascribe to malice..." types who rejects conspiracy theories unless presented with solid evidence to convict Those Who Have Conspired. It's more likely that those who object to violent media are concerned for society, but their concern is a misinformed one, and their outcry is based on the emotional impact of the issue, rather than the facts.
On the other hand, puritanism crops up in many strange forms in the US. I have a friend who keeps talking about how cell phones cause cancer, traffic accidents, and every other ill to befall mankind. When her husband was given a cell phone from work, she had a big problem with it... not because work would call him a lot, because they dont... not because he would drive carelessly while using it, because he doesn't bring it along in the car... No, she had a problem with it because they were now Cell Phone Owners, and therefore unclean.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-02 06:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

I was half interested on what he had to say but wasn't willing to read it from "the source" that they had "the source" on.

Who the hell wants to wait 5 minutes to click through a bunch of dumb ads just to read what some video game programmer has to say about Terrorism?

I wouldn't watch a commercial free show with Bush talking about terrorism either.

Troll troll troll! by mekkab · 2004-03-02 06:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

As an avid video gamer from the early 80's, I must congratulate you on your troll. If you think depravity didn't exist back in the day you are SORELY mistaken.

P.S.- GTA3 and Vice City are breathtaking games. I am in awe everytime I play them. Beating up a hooker gets old fast; but playing a beautifully immersive game where many of the small details were well thought out is a complete joy.

P.P.S- Immoral behavior? Guess what- there is no wrong and no right. There's only pleasure and pain.

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

Re:Troll troll troll! by Vicegrip · 2004-03-02 07:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

Breathtaking? More like mind numbingly stupid. Cars that drive like the steering wheel actually was a joystick. Cops who magically stop chasing you after you drive over a special token. Idiot AI that has gang members shooting at you no matter what car you are in because somehow they always know its you. Everything in this game has the memory of a gnat fly and reacts the same way every time to what you do.

Bone numbingly awful gameplay patched up with 'pretty' graphics and sold by catering to the lowest instincts of people. Commander Keen was more inventive by a landslide.

No thanks, I'll spend my money on something else.

--
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Re:Troll troll troll! by synth7 · 2004-03-02 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

P.P.S- Immoral behavior? Guess what- there is no wrong and no right. There's only pleasure and pain.

If there is no right and wrong, then your statement cannot be right. You have stated a paradox that is at odds with human sentience. In a world where there is no cognizance, your statement is correct since it is null.

However, in a world in which a sentient mind evaluates, there must be right and wrong, or there is no way to evaluate.

It's a nice theory, as it justifies anything, but it fails if you bother to think about it.

Re:Bring on the old games by poptix_work · 2004-03-02 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Tradewars!

--
Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.

Don't let your kids play GTA then stupid by xtal · 2004-03-02 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you lack the ability to monitor and care for your children in a manner that you see fit, then don't have kids.

I grew up playing video games, hey, news flash, there were some pretty gorey games out there even back in the day if you knew where to look. I remember one I used to play called Speed Racer? Or somesuch, you ran over little old ladies. *splock*

Haha. It's a game, stupid. You filled in the violent details in your head back then. I'm a responsible member of society, I fully accept responsibility for my actions, I vote, I have a University degree, and I love playing GTA. For that matter, I drink beer to excess too!

Keep your ghoulier-than-thou hands off my video games and monitor what your children do. Teach your children to have minds of their own and to think critically rather than worrying about a video game. Maybe the reason there are so many irresponsible people out there is nobody explains the whole concequences-for-your-own-actions thing? Because it's the state's fault for LETTING me get these evil drugs and noodie-pics and video games. It's not my fault!

I like violent fiction and horror movies, too. There are some pretty offensive "holy" books out there too, at least to my sensibilities. Censorship is EVIL. You get to control your kids until they're 16 or so. Have fun.

I don't even bother playing the game in GTA. I laugh my ass off driving around running over people. I know I'm not the only one out there either! *haha* It's ENTERTAINMENT.

Don't you have a people-against-funny-cartoons meeting to attend, or something?

--
..don't panic

Re:Article by Tarrek · 2004-03-02 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't take this as overly harshly, or as a flame in the least, but this is a subject I see come up quite a lot, and I simply have to respond.

Slashdot is not the manifestation of your personal ideological beliefs. It is a site that people of a like demographic submit links to stories on the internet that they think that others in their demographic may be interested in reading.

Slashdot does not ban "signing away your life" to get to stories because Slashdot is not a political rights action committee, bent on upholding Slashdottian ideals. Slashdot is a news service and forum community.

MAME, Kazaa, and internet preservation by phorm · 2004-03-02 06:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

It seems to me that the original DN3D was open-sourced, possibly even released free. Not sure about Keen, but I think it might be now abandonware.

The relation, take a look at the comment about MAME and emulation:

people have done it just for the love of the old games, so, in a sense, they've done a tremendous public service in preserving the old games to be played and enjoyed today

It's nice to see an artist (video-game artist) who understands what this is about. Old movies, old music, old games... it's not about theft in many cases, it's about preservation. It's about the game you can't play anywhere, or the movie that you won't find in any Blockbuster nearby.

I wonder about 10 years from now though. Will people bother swapping around copies of GTA: VC, or will it fade into oblivion as the next dismember-head-in-a-baggie game comes around. Games like Defender etc had lasting appeal... even ones like Keen and DN3D did (humour in DN3D). I wonder how today's games will measure up.

Re:MAME, Kazaa, and internet preservation by B'Trey · 2004-03-02 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Keen is not abandonware.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:MAME, Kazaa, and internet preservation by StocDred · 2004-03-02 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's about the game you can't play anywhere, or the movie that you won't find in any Blockbuster nearby.
Except that most people are stealing games that you can play anywhere and movies that you can find in Blockbuster. And I notice you didn't include music in that statement.
The preservation argument only gets you so far, and it doesn't address the concept that the game's owners might and should have control over how their stuff is "preserved." Nintendo certainly speaks loudly on this issue, since they "preserve" all their old games by continually re-releasing them. If a game company declares that Game X is public domain, then by all means, preserve away. Until that time, it's still stealing.
Re:MAME, Kazaa, and internet preservation by Pushnell · 2004-03-02 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, Keen is NOT abandonware. If you download the full version, you are participating in illegal warez, and this is one of my hugest pet-peeves with the gaming industry.

Does anyone actually pay $20 freaking dollars for Commander Keen these days? There are so many good games out there that stupidly can't be distributed as abandonware because of paranoid companies. They're not making money on these old games any more, so why the fuss?!

I just don't understand why more companies can't realize that by demanding hard cash for >15-year-old games, they're only shunning the people who love them the most. That, and they'll probably go elsewhere & find a warez copy for free.
Re:MAME, Kazaa, and internet preservation by TomServo · 2004-03-02 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except that most people are stealing games that you can play anywhere and movies that you can find in Blockbuster. And I notice you didn't include music in that statement.

Two responses:

1) I don't know what most poeple are doing, as I'm not involved in the modern game warez community. I do know that sometimes I want to revive games that I loved as a kid and want to play again. I downloaded Super Dodge Ball, River City Ransom, and Bubble Bobble because I didn't know where else to get 'em. Admittedly, I played them for about 15 minutes, but it was great to play them again.

2) We're not talking about music. That's why it wasn't mentioned.

The preservation argument only gets you so far, and it doesn't address the concept that the game's owners might and should have control over how their stuff is "preserved." Nintendo certainly speaks loudly on this issue, since they "preserve" all their old games by continually re-releasing them. If a game company declares that Game X is public domain, then by all means, preserve away. Until that time, it's still stealing.

So we have to sit here and *hope* that some company will release an old game? I know people that have been waiting for either a re-release or a faithful update of Kid Icarus for many years now, but there are no signs of that happening. Your theory ONLY works if the publishers will work with the community, which they haven't done so far. They don't decide which games they think they can re-release in a collection and make money, then release the rest as freeware. Instead, they hold onto everything they've ever created, even if there are a grand total of 5 fans out there on the intarweb, and only release the ones that are the most popular. The tyranny of the majority and all that.

I don't think this would be a question if the smaller games were released as freeware. If Nintendo would go through their rom library, identify all those that they think they can make money off of, then designate the others are freely distributable as roms, there would be no discussion. In the current situtation, there's nothing that makes this any more than a few fans who would like to relive an old memory vs. a company that doesn't stand to make any money. It's a no-win situation, one that could easily be rectified by releasing the game, a win-win situation in which the old fans get to relive their memories, and they, in turn, now like and will support the publisher.
Re:MAME, Kazaa, and internet preservation by StocDred · 2004-03-02 09:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

So just because you want to play an old game, they should be declared free property for all? Your local game store probably has a section with old consoles and used games, and the three you mentioned are all reasonably common. Go buy them. (Alternately, there's a new River City Ransom coming for GBA, Bubble Bobble has been made and re-made a hundred times, and I believe that Super Dodge Ball Advance was a GBA launch title.)
So we have to sit here and *hope* that some company will release an old game?
Yes, you do. Because it's their property. As long as they continue to hold the rights, they get to decide what happens to it. If they never make a new version of Mappy, that's too damn bad for us Mappy fans.
If Nintendo would go through their rom library, identify all those that they think they can make money off of
And how exactly do they do that? Who knows what game or franchise could be suddenly re-released, remixed or redone to acclaim? It's far easier for companies to hold on to their property, than to let go of something that could be potential profit. Unfortunately, that's business. If you were to tell the Desilu people that they should drop their claims to the I Love Lucy TV series because it's old and only a small portion of people like it, they'd call you crazy, because there's plenty of potential dough there. And once you give up on something, it's next to impossible to ever get it back. So it's a huge business decision, even if the product in question is something as un-remembered as an obscure arcade game. If Nintendo had released Balloon Fight into public domain, they couldn't make $5 per eCard set.
This whole thing is a lot more complicated that the FREE ROMZ types make it out to be. What about the people who originally created these games? Suppose the guy who wrote the music still needs to be paid a couple bucks because of his contract? There's legal hoops to jump through, and it's often just not worth it.
Pick any TV show you liked that is no longer on the air. If you're lucky, there's a DVD or VHS available somewhere. If not, too bad. You can't just claim My Right! and demand that it be released for free by whatever company still owns the physical tapes or film. Most times, you can't even demand it be released for purchase... for the same legal reasons I described above. Actors and writers and musicians and producers all can have any number of claims against the show... wages, royalties, fees. I don't see why video games are any different, except that we have this creeping disrespect for "intangible" works, and a digitally transmitted ROM file comes close enough to that.
a win-win situation in which the old fans get to relive their memories, and they, in turn, now like and will support the publisher.
This is very admirable and dreamy, but I don't see any business buying into it. There's no indication that fans will later support a company that gave away everything for free. Most times, they just get pissy when the company starts timidly asking for money. Go see all the furor when IGN (and dozens of other formerly free websites) started up a pay premium service. Sure, some people will make the connection between "These guys gave me River City Ransom for free, so I'm going to go buy their new GBA version" but most consumers will not.
Re:MAME, Kazaa, and internet preservation by Synonymous+Yellowbel · 2004-03-02 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

This whole thing is a lot more complicated that the FREE ROMZ types make it out to be. What about the people who originally created these games? Suppose the guy who wrote the music still needs to be paid a couple bucks because of his contract? There's legal hoops to jump through, and it's often just not worth it.

Good point.

Pick any TV show you liked that is no longer on the air. If you're lucky, there's a DVD or VHS available somewhere. If not, too bad. You can't just claim My Right! and demand that it be released for free by whatever company still owns the physical tapes or film.

Bad point. Do you know what the point of copyright is? It's to encourage people to create. It's not to enforce some pre-existing control over ideas and creations - in nature, once these are disseminated, they're part of the world and the creator loses control. Copyright gives creators exclusive right to copy/distribute their works for a certain term. A certain term! The idea is that after a reasonable period of profit (HA! Reasonable 200 years ago maybe...) the creator loses control over the work so that the world can further benefit from it and build on it. When we look at ancient shows or games which the owning corporation doesn't see fit to release in any legal form (and in particular, a form which allows legal preservation), morally there is no reason to restrict what the public does with that game.

Yeah yeah yeah, "But it's the law" - we all know the arguments against that. Most notably here, we must recognise that no law can forsee every case, nor give everyone the benefit of the doubt. In these cases we must fall back on morality, and in my opinion only a total nutter would judge it immoral or amoral to distribute 10 or 20 year old games in which the publisher's only interest is a possible rehash 10 years in the future - if at all. The game is part of my world - what really gives anyone the right to take that away?

Re:Bring on the old games by TopShelf · 2004-03-02 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

And then there is Nethack...

Always was and still is addictive as crack.

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

Joking about NARC? by caliban02 · 2004-03-02 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly. It's similar to that concept, where "NARC" was you're going after the drug dealers in a very Reagan-esque way. The motto was: "Say no, or die!" That was a lot of fun. Here, you're defending America. It's funny, the marketing guys were saying, "Well, you know, we can't put the White House in there. That's just not going to work." And I go: "You know what? Do you have a problem defending your country? Maybe you need a new country." It's almost like we don't realize how lucky we are and what an easy life we have here in America and all the great things we have. Yet, it seems like we're not even willing to defend our country.

He's kidding here, right? He's just joking? He's not actually saying "gosh, the best way to defend America in the 80's was to randomly shoot drug dealers?" I loved NARC. It was an amazing game. But how can he criticize GTA for violence and depravity? Even if you think drugs should be illegal, what you did to them in NARC wasn't exactly "due process."

I'm mis-reading this somehow, right?

Re:Joking about NARC? by Tyler+Durden · 2004-03-02 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

He's kidding here, right? He's just joking? He's not actually saying "gosh, the best way to defend America in the 80's was to randomly shoot drug dealers?" I loved NARC. It was an amazing game. But how can he criticize GTA for violence and depravity? Even if you think drugs should be illegal, what you did to them in NARC wasn't exactly "due process."
Amen. How the creator of NARC and Smash TV (a personal favorite of mine) can bitch about the violence in other video games is beyond me. In Smash TV, you would kill untold thousands of opponents for game-show prizes like VCRs, vacations, and toasters. If that's not amoral then I don't know what is.
I haven't played GTA games a lot. But from what I can tell, it's your choice as the player how moral or immoral of a path you will take. And, like real life, immoral actions have consequences that prevent you from reaching your goal. In NARC, to win the game you assumed to know who were the bad guys right away and killed them all first before asking questions later. This isn't amoral, but a pretty fucked up moral code imho.

--
Happy people make bad consumers.

The Crux: by mekkab · 2004-03-02 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

We got some publicity. It was the first game, I guess, where you exploded people into their parts. It was some extreme prejudice in the prosecution of the drug dealers. Another tag line was: "Protect the innocent and punish the guilty." That was controversial. I think people were a little put aback by some of the visual violence and so forth. It's amazing, when you look at today with games like "House of the Dead" and any number of titles. The "NARC" logo had this splash of red across it and Nintendo wouldn't do that, so they made it yellow. It looked like somebody urinated on the box. Couldn't do that, you know? Look at Nintendo [now]. A few years back they released "Conker's Bad Fur Day" -- adult-themed pornography.

So, YOU pioneered graphic killing in video games, but because there was a good message "Don't do Drugs!" its okay? And GTA3 (which ACTUALLY has a pretty good anti-drug message in it!) is bad?

Yeah. Right.

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

Re:Who cares what they like by DrugCheese · 2004-03-02 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

So you rant on them for saying your game sucks, and then turn around and say their game sucks?

What level of pacman can you make it to?

--
*DrugCheese rants*

What's "Parental Accountability?" by Kombat · 2004-03-02 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you lack the ability to monitor and care for your children in a manner that you see fit, then don't have kids.

<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK>
Nonsense! This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. We have government programs, daycare, surrogacy, artificial insemination, adoption, gene therapy, genetic counseling, selective fetal termination, ... there are no excuses to not have kids anymore. If you don't want to quit your job to care for your own offspring, then don't! We've got daycare, live-in-nannies, gangs, and community programs. Now, parents need not sacrifice their freedoms and professional lives just to get bogged down with the boring, menial task of raising one's own children. Heck, with all the video games and TV channels we have available now, kids practically raise themselves!

When I think back of how my family had to give up caviar and luxury cars and only live off one salary so my Mom could stay home and raise me, I'm filled with sadness. Think of all the fun times with shallow fellow corporate slaves that she missed out on to sit around and watch me grow up. If only we'd had MTV and Nintendo when I were young.

Parents today shouldn't have to trade in their Mercedes SUV and GSM cellphone and downsize from their 4-bedroom mansion and live off of one salary! BOTH parents can continue working as long as they want, and need only interact with their kids for a couple hours a day! I mean, after a long day at work, who has the energy to quiz a kid over the basic algebra they're studying for tomorrow's test? Can't someone else do it?

Can't someone else raise our kids? In this day and age - yes!
<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK>

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.

I'm sorry, but... by Dark+Lord+Seth · 2004-03-02 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

... I don't get this. Okay, let's accept the fact that this person once made a few popular arcade games. Check. That was before my time so I'll just have to trust Salon.com on this and whoever else on here thinks the same. Fair enough, so 25 years later he's still running around and respected as the technological father of some of the most ancient yet best arcade games. Okay then!

Then we end up in the present. While his previous work is worthy of respect, for sure, I think all that respect has been completely shattered by this interview. Read the paragraphs about his latest game called "Target: Terror". First of all, it just screams out that he just plans to ride along the wave and hype created by 9/11. I can imagine someone wanting to make a game about the US kicking some terrorist ass. I suppose that's being patriotic and that's what you US people supposedly revel in. Fine with me so far. However, slapping a "KILL TERRORISTS FOR 9/11!" sticking on a game and adding a turban to all in-game badguys with plenty of 9/11 referrences so it can ride the hype to kill anything terrorist is just... Wrong. What's wrong with making a game without terrorist referrences, hmm? Why not a sect trying to bomb the GG Bridge? Or maybe some nice juicy conspiracy? Hell, maybe the Canadians would like to see San Franciso bridgeless for some obscure reason but for the love of Eris, keep the terrorist hype out of it. Please.

Second, he berates games like GTA for being amoral. This coming from the same guy who manages to quote himself to the press saying "You know what? Do you have a problem defending your country? Maybe you need a new country." and who also scores another hype point for mentioning Columbine. Damn. So, let me get this straight, it is bad for games to be violent, it is bad for games to contain anything indecent like drug abuse, prostitution, gambling and all that. But as soon as it involves killing terrorists and defending the US, it is okay. Uh huh. Turns out one of his previous games used to ride along with the current US public enemy number one. At least he's consistent about poor subject choice.

Seriously, what is wrong with this person? Right now I do not care wether he's to be respected for what he did in the past. What he said in the present reeks of overhyping, bad decisions, double standards and overzealous patriotism and to me, the present matters more then the past.

--
Hate me!

Re:I'm sorry, but... by shystershep · 2004-03-02 08:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

RTFA -- he specifically states that the they avoided giving the terrorists any kind of racial/ethnic identity in order to "take the high road" (so they could be Canadian, after all). And he did not condemn violence in video games, he condemned pointless violence -- i.e., putting the player in the position of comitting violent acts for their own sake rather than some just end.

Disagree with him all you want -- I do -- but next time actually look at the facts instead of making a knee-jerk emotional response.

--
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Re:I'm sorry, but... by pommiekiwifruit · 2004-03-02 09:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

he condemned pointless violence
Whereas with his game Smash TV you are shooting enemies to collect consumer goods and cash! A worthy pursuit indeed.
Great game, but I fail to see how it takes the moral high ground. And yup, I have written a game where you have to shoot perps to get points :-/

no, they were dying in mills 90 years ago.. by rbird76 · 2004-03-02 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

or labor strikes, or disease, or bad food...

I'm not certain that people were better - they may have been but that had fewer choices and less say in what choices they had. Bad magazines could easily be noted by other people. Lack of attendance at church or other events would be known. You couldn't go online to see anything unusual - you would have to journey far (if you could afford it) or order through the mail which would be seen.

I can't argue that what society holds as good is so, but the choices people had were restrained. Knowing what they would have done in the presence of choices we have now isn't possible, and prevents me from understanding how we've improved or worsened over time.

Another point. Objectification of women might not be good now, but it existed then - just not as blatantly sexual. Women were wives, mothers, or schoolteachers. They could not be trusted with power or choice (what jobs to hold, where to live, etc.) They couldn't hold property or vote. They could sporadically express their will, but their acts were constrained by the expectations of others, for the desires of others. They may not have been exclusively sex objects, but they were likely objects just the same - vacuum cleaners, or money counters, or social ornaments. In a sense, women have more choices and fewer are likely to be objectified now than previously because they can choose their paths and do not have to conform so strongly to the wills and desires of others. There will always be objectification - people want what they want, and sometimes can't see others as anything other than a means to those ends.

Re:no, they were dying in mills 90 years ago.. by happyfrogcow · 2004-03-02 07:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most women I know today are very unhappy because they don't know where they fit in, having to juggle a family, career, and whatever else the feminist movement has told them they should do.

I feel that way as a man though. society tells men how to behave as well, but hardly anyone fits that mold. There might be less pressure on men though, having not been repressed in a way similar to women. I would be less happy though, if society explicitly told me I could only be a schoolteacher, house-husband or nurse. I doubt they are questioning their desire to have the freedom of choice, but rather questioning the choices they might have made.
Re:no, they were dying in mills 90 years ago.. by Bendebecker · 2004-03-02 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Dude, people are the same. Always."

That is actually a falacy. The people that lived a hundred years ago would not understand a lot of the issues we are faced with simply becuase they were not issues. It was a matter of common sense. The classic examples are sexuality and violence. If you asked Horace (around 10 BC or so) or Ovid (around the same), they would not have understood the differences in sexuality that we now classify as being different. The same with violence. The average ancient greek did things on a daily basis taht would shock and horrify even the most hardened inner city gang member today. The ancients greeks had a festival were women had tgo throw a dead pig in a well and three days later climb down there and fish it back up. The ancients greeks when they went back to nature, really went back to nature. They would go out in the woods and literally rip apart small animals with their bare hands and eat them raw. In fact there is actually a greek word for the science of eating raw flesh and several manuscripts were supposedly written on the subject. The ancient greeks had a connection with nature and the animals we have long since lost. The same with people 100 years ago, they had conections and attitudes that we don't have. If we ahd grown up then we would have the same asttitudes but we wouldn't be like we are now - we wouldn't be us. So you are partly correct - if any person lived and grew in any era, they woudl grow to fit into that era. But if we were to take say an adult ancient greek out of the past and transport him here, no matter how much education or social interaction he had he would never ever fit in cause he is not the same as us.

As to the attitudes towards women, you are somewhat correct and somewhat wrong. men of the times often kept women out of politics, not becuase they thought women were inferior (though some if not many obviously did) but to a large extent becuase they wanted to protect women. Politics is a messy business and it wasn't something most men wanted women to dirty their hands with. It was one of the side effects of the victorian era - before it, women were as much a part of everyday siociety as men were. They worked at the home and in the fields, helped to support the family, etc. But as they were no longer needed becuase the husband could support the family alone, a lot of guys thought their wives should be above dirtying their hands with work. Women were thought to be above that. On the other hand, there was no reason to hold back women that did want to dirty their hands. If a woman wanted to vote, she should have been allowed to. Its the pedestal problem - once you put something on top of a pedestal it harms that things interaction with everything else. That was what happened with the victorian era - if women were above it then they were restricted from it as well. A similiar thing occured in France during the early middle ages with the Marovingians. They were set on such a high pedestal (of holiness this time) that they became useless to reality becuase they were so restricted in their interactions with it. In the end the price of freedom is that you have to get your hands dirty. Women eventually fought their way off the pedestal and are now a part of our culture in a real way again. Unfortunately some feminists are so sexist that they are trying to fight their way back up onto the pedestal.

--
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Re:no, they were dying in mills 90 years ago.. by lxs · 2004-03-02 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you asked Horace (around 10 BC or so) or Ovid (around the same), they would not have understood the differences in sexuality that we now classify as being different. The same with violence.

You'd be surprised what Horace and Ovid would understand. If you actually read letters from ancient Greece or from Rome, you will recognise much of the problems of today. Overcrowthing, noisy neighbours, lawlessnes and foreigners with strange ideas were as common back then as they are now.

The most famous of these "sayings by the ancients" is this piece

"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders, and love chatter in places of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food, and tyrannize their teachers."

Is an old translation (but the only one I could find quickly by Googling) of something allegedly said by Socrates in the 4th century BC, as recorded by Plato.

no GTA doesn't solve anything by rbird76 · 2004-03-02 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

but it wasn't meant to. I guess I think that GTA is the wrong target in this case, because it is explicitly (via the video game rating system) aimed at people who should be able to handle it (or shouldn't be running about free if they cannot). If society feels that games like this are wrong, I think the targeting should be far more comprehensive and consistent, so that it doesn't become a way for individuals to avoid responsibilty for their own choices. Showing the consequences of violence to others and self rather than a cartoony vision of "let's kill someone, and they'll melt away in monents with no harm done" would be a start. Perhaps this isn't the best medium for that, but it might help.

The REAL violence in Video Games by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-02 08:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

In Civilization I nuke cities and destroy entire civilizations, and no one complains about that...

Fuck this guy by Lord+Kano · 2004-03-02 09:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

From the article

That's, I guess, my objection to "Grand Theft Auto." I really don't like the amoralistic games where you're out there doing bad stuff just for fun. It's kind of like video vandalism, you know? Maybe you could argue that it's better to have the guy break windows on the video screen than down the street [laughs]. I really don't know. To me, it is a little troubling -- maybe I'm just kind of old-fashioned -- to have the player take on an amoral role in a game. I feel strongly that the player should have a cause and be acting for the just.

This is from the creator of Narc, a game in which police officers BLOW APART SUSPECTS BODIES. I guess that's ok in his book because not only is it fun to kill drug dealers, but it's for the greater good. It isn't amoral to murder bad people.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:Who cares what they like by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-02 10:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

I can program a game like pacman using 1 joystick and no buttons. Those aren't even games, they are like light show demos.

It's not programming them that was an exploit, it was inventing them! Even programming them was hard, could you program a Pacman game on the same hardware in assembly language? With all those restrictions, the speed of the CPU, the quantity of system and video RAM, etc.

Slashdot Mirror

Twenty-five Years at the Heart of Gaming

49 of 468 comments (clear)