Slashdot Mirror
A History of Video Game Controversy
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "Sex, violence, animal cruelty, and scandalous pixels -- GameSpot has posted an in-depth feature examining the history of controversy in the video game industry. The feature examines several "major offenders" dating back as far as Death Race in the arcades up through more recent games like Grand Theft Auto III and Manhunt. Also included in the feature is coverage of the so-called "retail rogues" (games controversial enough that they were pulled from the shelves), as well as a docket of game-industry lawsuits and a look at the lighter side of game controversy. Who wants to bet that that the use-confiscated-drugs-for-short-term-benefit gameplay of Midway's upcoming NARC will make the cut in future articles about video game controversy?"
"We look for someone or something to blame society's ills on"
Can anyone say "Salem Witch Trials?"
All of this nonsense, including antiquated notions about sex and nudity in the media, comes from the American Puritan (read: stupid, backwards, and closed-minded) Tradition.
Some things never change...
who is sick of this commie liberal "think of the children" bullshit that seeks to substitute parents actually teaching their kids right from wrong?
Maybe I'll go play DOOM and shoot up a high school, since apparantly that's all it takes...
Hahaha a "stab"..get it?. Ok that was dumb.
When movies first introduced violence and sex, society was much more traditional and these were only exposed to adults. As capitalism overtook traditionalism and movies like Austin Powers 3 get PG-13 ratings, this is all but gone of course.
br However, video games have and were always targeted at kids and teens. As these games become more violent, they also happen to coincide with events like the Columbine shootings.
Way to rip off an AC and get modded up to five, fuck head. I hope you get killed in a freak accident today, whore. And someone even did it before you, redundant inbred fuckhead.
Well, it's still going on. The US armed forces have "Apache" and "Commanche" helicopters, and use "Tomahawk" cruise missiles. As Noam Chomsky put it, it would be like Nazi Germany having tanks named "Jew" and "Gypsy". Oh, but it's the US, so it must be OK... it has a pretty flag on it... so pretty...
Concur, humans have been around for thousands of years.
Societies decay, hence the historical turnover.
I don't understand homosexuality, either. Apparently, jackhammering the prostate is pleasurable. So is injecting heroin. Yet we don't have junkies trying to claim that their nihilistic behavior deserves to be treated as natural.
If two males of the species want to abdicate manhood together, my disinterest could not be lessened.
Having these degenerates insist their behavior be accepted is way over the top.
I don't know what part of common sense escaped them; the complimentary shapes of the penis and vagina, the fact that the anus is a solid waste disposal means, and not an input aperature, the lack of natural lubricants/debilitiating affects of perverse use of the anus, presence of parasites in the digestive tract...
I dunno: I love a variety of men in my life; father, brother, colleagues...but the idea of unnatural contact with them is highly repulsive.
Nor is this an attack on individual homosexuals. I've worked with/around all manner of people, and it's their job performance that matters, not their sexuality. Furthermore, my own personal tastes are as likely to trigger negative reactions among others.
No, I think the great disgust I feel towards this particular idea is centered around the combination of its perverse celebration of something fundamentally wrong and unnatural coupled (no pun intended) with its community forcing it into the forefront of culture.
I could be equally repulsed by, say a group of diabolical mathematicians who insisted 2+2=3, and refused to shut their orifices when people told them that no once cared what they did in private, but their sick, twisted, fundamentally wrong ideas were not meant for public consumption.
Then there is the collateral damage to symbols like the rainbow and marriage.
Look, the rainbow, dare you to research it, refers to the divine promise not to drown the planet again. It is not meant to tempt the almighty to reconsider. I should be able to rejoice at the site of a rainbow, not saddened at the recognition of yet another sexually confused twit. Still, thanks for labeling degenerate establishments semi-clearly, so I can avoid them.
As for marriage, I favor a two-pronged attack. First, if gender doesn't matter anymore, let's complete the demolition, Casting Off the requirements for number, location, species, existence, and any other remnants of Your Old, Tired Ethic. I may need to marry Joan of Arc, and a few of these Martian rocks look sexy. Wouldn't want my "rights" to be "trampled" somehow, would you?
Second, lets come up with clearly defined, unambiguous terms. I think there is a dignity to an OF (Old-fashioned) prefix. OFmarriage, OFhusband, OFwife. There are probably better terms available. The point is that, amidst the decay of society into degenerate ambiguity and chaos, we need to have some clear terminology to communicate what we hold true.
And there is a lesson for the heterosexuals who treat marriage as some kind of higher level of dating: take it seriously.
Men: manhood is a gift from the creator, as is the wife. Cherish them both, and don't let some sick, effeminate liar pervert them.
Two trolls in one day. Whassup with that?
> Remind me again, what happens if you play it and don't kill anyone, hurt anyone or steal anything? Last I knew, you lose the game...
I've never lost a game like that... What happens? you get really bored with walking around looking at stuff. You don't gain any points, but unless you are an a mission you don't lose anything.
> In Passion, we see an example of noble sacrifice.
Really? I see a man who decided to sacrifice himself. It is not noble, it is just his choice. The only reason it is "noble" is because you see it as such. The only reason someone is offended by GTA is because they choose to be. I choose not to be offended by something completely made up, I choose not to consider Jesus noble for allowing himself to be killed.
(The real post is over, just a note on Christ: If he's so noble and can do miracles, would it not have been more noble for him to stick around longer & help heal/teach his followers? I don't believe this argument, but it is something to ponder.)