Slashdot Mirror


From Hot Coffee To Warm Tea

I've been avoiding posting about it, but Joystiq has a completely and utterly sane discussion of the non-story that is the Bully boy on boy kissing 'scandal'. Despite the ravings of Jack Thompson, the homosexual behavior in Bully was seen by the ESRB and is not the first game to feature such content. From the article: "The ESRB would be insane if they were bullied into giving an 'M' (Mature 17+) rating to Bully, as this story continues to gain traction in the mainstream press ... It would also force the ginormous Electronic Arts into the mix to defend the 'T' rated Sims. We're willing to wager that Electronic Arts, which has a Human Rights Campaign corporate equality index score of 88 and had transsexual game designer Danielle Bunten Berry on staff, will put up a good fight if challenged. Rockstar played this brilliantly, they slid in a topic that is controversial, but perfectly defensible, and those that would attack 'Warm Tea,' won't have an easy time of it compared to 'Hot Coffee.'" SFGate put up a thoughtful opinion piece / review of Bully this past weekend. If you're not familiar with the game, it's a great way to fully understand how there's really nothing to worry about here.

129 comments

  1. classification by illegalcortex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hot Coffee = male/female sex

    Hot Tea = male/male kissing

    Oh, the brits aren't going to like this one...

    1. Re:classification by not+already+in+use · · Score: 1

      No no no... it's Warm Tea. Hot Tea is along the lines of lemon party... But the point still stands, brits get the shaft (no pun intended) with this analogy.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    2. Re:classification by Yaotzin · · Score: 4, Funny

      This gives a whole new meaning to the Boston Tea Party...

      --
      Error: No error occurred
    3. Re:classification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ironically, in an Alanis Morissette kind of way, GTA is developed in the UK and Bully in Canada.

    4. Re:classification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno - I mean, we're all pretty sane over here. This whole story seems to be a bit of a storm in a tea-cup to me...

    5. Re:classification by aug24 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to know what Hot Chocolate is...

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  2. Bigotry by APE992 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone who truely finds this offensive should be considered a bigot.

    1. Re:Bigotry by ultranova · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone who truely finds this offensive should be considered a bigot.

      "Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot".

      That's pretty much the definition of irony :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Bigotry by infestedsenses · · Score: 1

      Two people kissing is considered porn, now?

    3. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny then, how the sex crime rate has been going steadily downwards since about 1970 or so....

      Gee, how do you reconcile that with the statement that more porn and violent entertainment leads to real life rape and violence? If that were true, wouldn't you at the very least expect to see a correlation between the availability of virtual/visual sex and violence and actual, real life acts?

    4. Re:Bigotry by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      Bigot or not, people are still entitled to a point of view. If you are intolerant of intolerance, are you any better than them?

    5. Re:Bigotry by EzraSj · · Score: 1
      Bigot or not, people are still entitled to a point of view. If you are intolerant of intolerance, are you any better than them?
      Yes, you are. There is a marked difference between being intolerant of someone's natural sexuality (or rather any quality they are born with) and being intolerant of fools. Are you trying to tell me there is a moral error in condemning the KKK?
      --
      Meta, Meta, Meta
    6. Re:Bigotry by n2art2 · · Score: 1
      More so I would say that those who do sway to the preference of same sex relations and who promote such lifestyles, tend to have more of a bigotry towards those who hold a moral stance to heterosexual relations.

      If Bigot is to mean:
      "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."


      Then I would say that both extreme sides would be called bigots. . .

      as well as hypocrites. Let me explain:

      A hypocrite is one who says one things but then does another, or "one who pretends to be what he is not."

      Same-sex relations leftist. . . . Says they believe in diversity, yet in practice they do not want diversity as much as they want approval/acceptance/recongnition. But in effect this flies in the face of true diversity, because they should be more accepting of someone's opposing beliefs and stance on this very issue, which in practice they are not.

      Heterosexual relations rightist. . . . Says they believe in love, and family, and caring for their fellow man. But in turn shows hate and anger and vengence towards those who need loved the most. Those who are their "enemies" on this particular subject.


      I prefer to be s centralist. . . I may not agree with one's choices or beliefs, but I also don't want someone censoring my choices and beliefs either.


      **** READ AT YOUR OWN RISK ****

      Christian reference to follow.

      On a farther note, (that might cause some to flame me from either the right or left parties) I believe in a God, that loves us so much that He gives us the choice to choose what we do with our lives in all aspects. He loves us all the same amount, and He loves us so much that He allows us to choose to follow His ways or to not.
      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
    7. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a moral stance to heterosexual relations

      It's not homophobia, it's a "moral stance". Next you'll be telling us about the moral stance to gentile existence during World War II.

    8. Re:Bigotry by HappySqurriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone who truely finds this offensive should be considered a bigot.

      I'm personally going to disagree with you mainly because I think the type of statement you're making undermines the freedom of speech (and religion) that western society is based on; it is the type of statement that prevents open (and honest) discussion on any subject and is just as damaging as "Anyone who rejects this videogame violence bill condones child abuse" or "If you oppose our participation in Afganistan you don't support our troops.".

      Personally I don't find the content in the game offensive but saying that someone who does is a bigot is pretty extreme. Maybe my education was poor, but I was always lead to believe that biggotry had to do with someone being intolerant towards another group. Now Tolerance (inspite of some people's opinion) does not mean to embrace something, it means to put up with; if your parents said they would tolerate the person you choose to marry you'd probably get very angry.

      I will try to make what I'm saying more clear ...

      Suppose you started working in a cubical next to someone who came from the gym every morning and dried their work-out gear in the open; being that they only wash this gear on the weekend by wednesday it smells pretty funky and on friday it smells like a dead animal. Now if your boss told you to "tolerate" it does that mean that you have to stop being offended by the smell of the sweaty workout stuff?

      In a similar fashion, someone who disagrees with (or is offended by) Homosexuality is not necessarily a bigot; it depends on how they act on it that would define whether they were a bigot or not.

    9. Re:Bigotry by EzraSj · · Score: 1
      The nature of intolerance isn't what makes it bad - everything you say about the idea of tolerance is of course correct. The problem is with the content - in this case, the ridiculous idea that it is somehow ok to be "offended" by a persons natural sexuality. Its as ridiculous as being offended by a persons race.

      In a similar fashion, someone who disagrees with (or is offended by) Homosexuality is not necessarily a bigot; it depends on how they act on it that would define whether they were a bigot or not.

      So a person who disagrees with and is offended by black people but says nothing of it is not necessarily a bigot? Somehow I don't think so. Someone will probably call this a false analogy, but it really isn't. Race and sexuality are both natural qualities that should have no bearing on how a person is treated by others.

      I fail to see why we should tolerate bigotry just because it is popular.
      --
      Meta, Meta, Meta
    10. Re:Bigotry by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      You need to define what's included in the "sex crime rate" and a location the data is supposed to cover, otherwise your statement is meaningless.

      According to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports, the rate of forcible rape has increased dramatically between 1970 and 2005.
      Around 1970 the rate was ~20 per 100,000 inhabitants.
      In the 2000's the rate was ~31 per 100,000 inhabitants.

    11. Re:Bigotry by n2art2 · · Score: 1

      Homophobia, is a fear or contempt towards a person in or thought of the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle.

      Please understand that a "moral stance" is a direct reference to one's personal beliefs in the morality of such actions, and not that of fear or contempt towards the idea of homosexuality or homosexual individuals.

      If I hold that my belief in a God who considers such a lifestyle as an act that is not good, then it would be the morality of my convictions that would preclude me from such actions myself. This is not to say that the far-right is not homophobic, but that those of us who hold a more centralized view, do not believe that my moral decisions should be placed on someone else, nor should their's on me.

      But then again your a Coward, afraid of his own "Karma" so where does that leave you?

      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
    12. Re:Bigotry by Guuge · · Score: 1

      There's a gap in your reasoning! How is calling someone a bigot an act of intolerance? I don't recall the OP stating any intolerance or animosity toward bigots. Heck, the fellow could be the president of Save the Bigots for all we know. Your assumption shows that you think that bigotry is bad. Therefore, you are yourself a bigot!

    13. Re:Bigotry by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You cannot use the uniform crime reports to determine the rate of forcible rape because it records only reported crimes. What they tell you is that more rapes were reported, they tell you nothing about the actual rate of incidence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Bigotry by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      More so I would say that those who do sway to the preference of same sex relations and who promote such lifestyles, tend to have more of a bigotry towards those who hold a moral stance to heterosexual relations.

      Just plain wrong. You cannot possibly make a correlation about an entire group of people based on your personal beliefs. This is the same as saying all followers of Islam are terrorists. Simply not true. Period.

      Same-sex relations leftist. . . . Says they believe in diversity, yet in practice they do not want diversity as much as they want approval/acceptance/recongnition. But in effect this flies in the face of true diversity, because they should be more accepting of someone's opposing beliefs and stance on this very issue, which in practice they are not.

      I shouldn't say that you're wrong on this issue, more like uninformed. What you call same-sex relations leftists do believe in diversity, and in order to get there society has to be accepting of those who are different from the "norm." Saying that supporting gay rights is trampling on diversity because it excludes people who oppose gays is ludicris. What we're talking about is having equal rights for all people, and not having something as stupid as boys kissing each other in a video game become a major issue (more of a free speech issue, but I digress). People who want equal rights for homosexuals welcome the opinions of those who don't approve of it. You don't have to like homosexuality, but you have to accept the fact that homosexuals live in your world, and they are human and deserve equal treatment.

      --
      I got nothin'
    15. Re:Bigotry by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Bigot.

    16. Re:Bigotry by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      There is a marked difference between being intolerant of someone's natural sexuality (or rather any quality they are born with) and being intolerant of fools.

      What if they're born fools?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    17. Re:Bigotry by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      the ridiculous idea that it is somehow ok to be "offended" by a persons natural sexuality.

      Taking a shit is a natural act too. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be offended if someone dropped trow and took a big dump right in front of me.

      Some "natural acts" belong in a private setting, including tonsil hockey (be it between Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve).

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:Bigotry by drapeau06 · · Score: 1

      The GP did not suggest that we be intolerant of bigots. It seems only fair that bigots wear any stigma attached to the label 'bigot'—they earned it and who are we to deprive them of their just desserts?

    19. Re:Bigotry by EzraSj · · Score: 1
      Some "natural acts" belong in a private setting, including tonsil hockey (be it between Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve).


      ....Which isn't really what we're talking about. If that were the case, then this would really be a non issue, since the game also includes 'tonsil hockey' between girls and boys - the double standard is the problem. Also, my post contained the term "natural qualities" not "natural acts" - nice switch job there. What I'm talking about are natural conditions. To use your analogy, the viewpoint I'm talking about would be the one that says it is wrong for people to take a shit, whether in public or not, because it is morally wrong. Talk about asinine, eh?

      --
      Meta, Meta, Meta
    20. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He loves us so much that He allows us to choose to follow His ways or to not.

      Ok, so I choose not to follow "His" ways. What's wrong with that? Where does "He" gives you the right to negatively judge me for something that "He" loved me enough to let me do?

    21. Re:Bigotry by n2art2 · · Score: 1
      Please realize that I am talking about 2 extremes, and if you read the ending you will realize that I personally fall nearer to the middle of the road then either extreme. I am merely pointing out that both extremes tend to think the extreme about the opposite in general. If you try and understand me I'm saying that all should be a little more willing to meet in the middle. But you seem to have made sweeping speculation about me.

      What you call same-sex relations leftists do believe in diversity, and in order to get there society has to be accepting of those who are different from the "norm." Saying that supporting gay rights is trampling on diversity because it excludes people who oppose gays is ludicris. What we're talking about is having equal rights for all people, and not having something as stupid as boys kissing each other in a video game become a major issue (more of a free speech issue, but I digress). People who want equal rights for homosexuals welcome the opinions of those who don't approve of it. You don't have to like homosexuality, but you have to accept the fact that homosexuals live in your world, and they are human and deserve equal treatment.


      You want equal rights, yet things like BET are ok, but there would be an uproar if there was the opposing station of WET. Everyone is selfish, that's human nature also. I would dare say that a White Heterosexual Male has less rights then any other humanity group, at least in the USA that is.

      Or how about wanting Federal support for Homosexuals, but not wanting Federal Support for Private Educational Institutions that have a faith basis (you pick the religion, Jewish, Muslim, or any other)?
      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
    22. Re:Bigotry by rts008 · · Score: 1

      "What if they're born fools?"

      Then take 'em out back of the woodshed an' drown their unwanted asses.
      That's what has got us in the mess we are in now- no way to "cull the herd" like used to happen in the world.

      That's what society and civilization will get you- no ability to cull the herd, and the inferiors take over.

      Damn, did I say that out loud?....Oh shit! here comes the MODS!!!! run fer yer lives!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    23. Re:Bigotry by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      You want equal rights, yet things like BET are ok, but there would be an uproar if there was the opposing station of WET. Everyone is selfish, that's human nature also. I would dare say that a White Heterosexual Male has less rights then any other humanity group, at least in the USA that is.

      We do have WET, its pretty much every other station on TV. Being a white hetero male, I haven't run into any less rights than anyone else I know, minority or otherwise.

      Or how about wanting Federal support for Homosexuals, but not wanting Federal Support for Private Educational Institutions that have a faith basis (you pick the religion, Jewish, Muslim, or any other)?

      Federal support for a faith based school is seperation of church and state. You want to send your kid to a faith-based school, thats fine pay for it. If they want a free education, go to the religion free publicly funded school. Federal support is not the issue. The issue is acceptance.

      --
      I got nothin'
    24. Re:Bigotry by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 2

      See! You're onto something here! All we have to do is stop reporting the crime and it will all go away! That must be the solution!

    25. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that the bigots that hate people who are different might be the ones that end up drowning everyone else..

    26. Re:Bigotry by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There's a gap in your reasoning! How is calling someone a bigot an act of intolerance? I don't recall the OP stating any intolerance or animosity toward bigots.

      The OP did, however, show intolerance towards people who find homosexuality offensive. Therefore, the OP fits the definition of a bigot - he's being intolerant of an idea - the idea that homosexuality is offensive or wrong.

      Unless, of course, one defines "bigotry" as opposing things I don't find wrong, in which case it quickly reduces down to "Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot".

      Your assumption shows that you think that bigotry is bad. Therefore, you are yourself a bigot!

      I guess I am, then. But it still doesn't make the OP any less ironic :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re:Bigotry by moloko_synthemesc · · Score: 1

      Homosexuality...natural??? What a twisted view of reality. It's a choice. It's not something one has no control over. You don't screw corpses or molest children and call it natural, or do you? Where would you decide to draw a line on justifying your behavior? How long will it be until something even more outrageous is the next issue people will demand to be treated equally over? How many years would it take to degenerate to such a level? Go back 50 years and imagine trying this current trendy argument. This should give us some idea at the rate of degeneration.

      The thing that always stands out to me is how most homosexuals drone on and on about the fact that they are homosexual. As if they need to justify it even to themselves, or are looking for validation from others. As if repeating something enough times will cause everyone to eventually agree that there's nothing wrong with any sort of behavior. And they will. Most people will fall for anything, given time and enough propaganda (see Nazis).

    28. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... what a bigot!

      Homosexuality in non-human animals is well documented. Necrophilia and paedophilia are not. If they were, you might have a point, but as it stands you're just a bigot.

      In the fruit fly, we know exactly which gene sequences determine sexual response. Get over it - homosexuality is a natural and normal biological likelyhood.

      Not only do homosexuals drone on, so do women, blacks, asians, muslims... in fact, all but white men are busy "droning on" about the fact they are who they are, and they're not deviants or sub-humans or inferior to white males. The reason they do this is that, for centuries, white males have treated them all with contempt and looked down on them as useless scum. Like you continue to do today.

      The Nazis didn't just kill millions of Jews. They also killed homosexuals and gypsies because their "racial science" told them these genetic strains were inferior to their mythical Aryan ubermensch. Ask yourself how far you are away from that line of thinking, when you next denigrate gays.

    29. Re:Bigotry by tprime · · Score: 1

      That hasn't stopped current legistlation from being passed. If we can support bigotry through legislation, the powers that be can certainly condemn a game that supports the hated minority du jour....

      It is somewhat interesting though, that this is coming out around the same time as US mid term elections.

      --
      http://www.tomandemily.com
    30. Re:Bigotry by KiahZero · · Score: 1

      It's really rather simple. The people who are offended by this are only offended because the main character is kissing a male. They are not similarly offended when the main character kisses a female. Therefore, they are discriminating on the basis of sex, which makes them sexist.

      Perhaps if a person doesn't like being called a bigot, they should work to get rid of the attitudes that make them one, rather than complaining about the label?

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    31. Re:Bigotry by n2art2 · · Score: 1

      Seperation of Church and State was designed to keep the Government from regulating religion. It's what our country was founded on. The ability to practice any religion you choose without a government controlled religion. That is not the same as keeping Church out of the Government. If you think that is the case, then you should look at the constitution and the dollar bill a little closer.

      That is why the USA does not have a national religion, such as China, Iran, England, Saudi Arabia, and many others. We in the USA have the right to practice religion in the way we choose. (Ironic that goes back to what I said about choice.)

      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
    32. Re:Bigotry by n2art2 · · Score: 1

      btw: If you want to talk about funding, then I believe that all organizations that are educational based, should be required to meet guidelines for set course material only in order to recieve government funding. Then anything beyond the scope of those core requirements of education, would be up to the specific institution, and any funding needed for those extra functions would be the responcibility of that institution. Testing of students in specific catagories would be used to rate the institution's quality of education in those core requirements.

      Then again if we actually did that half of our "public" schools would fail. Then again maybe that would be a good thing.

      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
    33. Re:Bigotry by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Paedophilia has been around for a very long time, my friend (pretty much since the beginning of recorded history). And there is SIGNIFICANT evidence to indicate that some people have a biological predisposition to it. That doesn't mean we condone it or tolerate it.

      As for myself, I am quite tolerant of homosexuality. But I can nonetheless understand why others are not, and would not label someone a bigot for being uncomfortable seeing it thrown in their faces.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    34. Re:Bigotry by dangitman · · Score: 1
      I'm personally going to disagree with you mainly because I think the type of statement you're making undermines the freedom of speech (and religion) that western society is based on;

      How so? They are free to express their offense at seeing computer-generated characters kiss. Others are free to call them bigots for saying that. That's all free speech. It's not like anybody is censoring them. In fact, it's usually that kind of person who wants things like this censored.

      it is the type of statement that prevents open (and honest) discussion on any subject

      How so? "They are bigots for thinking that" is an honest statement. It would be less honest dialog if you suppressed that. Just like it would be less honest if you suppressed the bigots talking about what "offends" them. I think it's better to have this stuff out in the open. An honest debate is not one where people change their words to appear politically correct.

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  3. Heh by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

    It's like a corporate Poison Pill for Jack Thompson. Nee-chay!

  4. Politics by HappySqurriel · · Score: 1

    It should be interesting to see how this plays out because videogame content is under attack from both extremes of the political spectrum and on each side you should see the complete opposite reaction; on the socially progressive side the argument will be that anyone who doesn't support this is a caveman and the socially conservative side will see this as a continued destruction of the moral core of America.

    In general you could have infighting and loss of respect between these two groups and it should be interesting to see how this plays out.

  5. 'Hot Nougat' Squirrelsex mod by dryriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there anything Rockstar won't do to attract a little press attention?

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:'Hot Nougat' Squirrelsex mod by elmCitySlim · · Score: 1

      Thats the point. If I created and wanted to market a game, I would spend a few days programming and animating in something contraversal like this to use the current (and foolish) political climate for for advertisment. Constantly offended people need to realise that: a. Nobody "normal" cares, and b. They are helping the product/idea/art they are trying to ban.

    2. Re:'Hot Nougat' Squirrelsex mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope not. From a purely spectating standpoint, this is hilarious to watch (in a sad sort of way)

    3. Re:'Hot Nougat' Squirrelsex mod by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Is there anything Rockstar won't do to attract a little press attention?"

      If Jack Thompson wasn't such an asshat, Rockstar wouldn't be able to have something as simple as a boy-kisses-boy feature in the game to attract press attention.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:'Hot Nougat' Squirrelsex mod by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      They didn't make additional programming, they just didn't make the kiss action check the gender of the target. And why would they, a game that tells you "it's bad to kiss boys" when you try to do that would be worse than a game that just does what you tell it.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  6. True... by Channard · · Score: 1

    .. us Brits will also never be able to use the words 'Anyone fancy a cucumber sandwich' again.

    1. Re:True... by jb.hl.com · · Score: 2, Funny

      At last, a reason to turn down cucumber sandwiches!

      "I'm sorry, no thanks, they make me insecure about my sexuality."
      "..."

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    2. Re:True... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I won't even eat vegetables over 2 inches long"

      Ned Flanders

  7. Push the envelope by techpawn · · Score: 0

    Rockstar tried pushing the envelope in GTA and got burnt. So, they just picked a different letter and moved it very slowly.

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:Push the envelope by RsG · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Rockstar tried pushing the envelope in GTA and got burnt. So, they just picked a different letter and moved it very slowly.
      Got burnt? Yeah, they cried all the way to the bank! Those poor, maligned success stories....

      Seriously, Jackass here is the best thing that ever happened to them. As long as he keeps up his "crusade", they get free press, and a reputation that will attract people purely for the controversy.

      What's more, they've now made it a political issue by shifting the controversial content from sex and violence (which both the political left and right oppose on "moral" grounds) to homosexuality (which will piss off the right, but get sympathy support from the left). I wouldn't pity these guys. They know how to sell a game, ethically or otherwise.
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Push the envelope by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      They (or more exactly their publisher) did lose a lot of money on the recall of the GTA copies that contained the data for "hot coffee".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  8. Console by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just want a PC version.

    1. Re:Console by Qubit · · Score: 1
      I just want a PC version.

      Jack Thompson, is that you?

      No, we're not giving you a politically correct version!

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
    2. Re:Console by Meatloaf+Surprise · · Score: 1

      I believe he meant 'personal computer' version

  9. Yeesh by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful
    SFGate put up a thoughtful opinion piece / review of Bully this past weekend. If you're not familiar with the game, it's a great way to fully understand how there's really nothing to worry about here.


    I bought the game last week. I haven't found the boy you can kiss. So far, though, my impression is that the 'controversy' here is laughable at best. When you target people options appear indicating what you can do with them. With some females, for example, you can profess your attraction to them and potentially woo them into smooching. My guess is that there's a boy floating around you can walk up and the heart icon will appear. Wee. Polish those pitchforks. /sarcasm

    I have to be honest: I think it's more controversial that Bully is described as having 'gay sexual content that deserves a higher rating' than it is to have the option to kiss a boy in the game. Nice little double-standard there.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Yeesh by bunions · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Polish those pitchforks.

      Stop that, you'll go blind!

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    2. Re:Yeesh by The+Barking+Dog · · Score: 1

      I found the guy you could kiss, though I opted not to introduce that, uhh, predilection into play. It's one of the aquamarine sweater-wearing guys, though I can't remember his name.

    3. Re:Yeesh by StocDred · · Score: 1
      There's a couple guys you can kiss... probably one with each faction, I would guess. My boytoy is Trent, one of the bullying bastards who endlessly hassles you in the game's first chapter. Irony.

      But really, it's just for the life-up, I swear!

    4. Re:Yeesh by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      His name is Trent, he wears white shirt and jeans and has blonde hair. Generally picks on the nerds, target him and talk to him he'll usually say something like "Wanna play shirts and skins?" Unfortunately the unlock from Art class that lets you kiss for health bonus without having to give over gifts doesn't work on him. He always wants stuff. I wouldn't think us gays would be more materialistic than women =p

    5. Re:Yeesh by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      There's a boy in each clique who you can kiss. Trent is a bully with blond hair who you see quite often, then one of the tall black nerds, one of the brown hair preps, but I can't remember the specific greaser. You have to have a present for them to kiss them. Just say two positive things to them and then you'll have the option to give them a gift, and finally kiss them. The boy kissing is actually more tame than some of the make out sessions you have with the girls, who prop their leg up against your hip.

      I kissed all the guys for laughs, because now when I make out with a girl and one of those guys is around, they'll get into a cat fight!

  10. Warm Tea...?! by AdamTrace · · Score: 1

    THAT... is funny.

    1. Re:Warm Tea...?! by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      No...what would be funny is if it were just the bag...

  11. Bioware beat them to it.. by Channard · · Score: 1

    Both Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire contained homosexuality. In the case of Star Wars: KOTOR it was fairly tame, with the female Jedi Juhani confessing she was in love with you, and you could agree to discuss it after the mission was over. Jade Empire was more unabashed, with the female or male NPC having the option to make a member of the same sex fall in love with them. Although in both cases, whereas the heterosexual kiss was a full on face-plant, if you'd fallen for a character of the same sex, the scene cut out just before the kiss.

    1. Re:Bioware beat them to it.. by chrismcdirty · · Score: 1

      I think the same type of thing was present in Fable, too. I never experienced it, but I thought I may have read about it at one point.

      --
      It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    2. Re:Bioware beat them to it.. by Lostconfused · · Score: 1

      Yeah fable had the same thing. In fable and sims 2 it dosent matter if the character is male or female, the only thing that changes is the model and the voice over used, otherwise two characters behave in exactly the same way, so the main character can woe characters of either sex, propose and other what. Plus you could also get completely smashed and proceed to puke ones guts out. But it also had an M rating, so thats probably the reason it didnt catch as much flak or would work for a comparison.

    3. Re:Bioware beat them to it.. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      And Origin beat Bioware; anyone remember the gypsies in Ultima 6?

    4. Re:Bioware beat them to it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing Ultima (especially 5-7) to any games made in the last 10 years is unfair. Because Ultima was, you know, good. It had designers, writers, artists and playtesters, all of which are a bit alien to today's "sausage factory" gaming industry.

    5. Re:Bioware beat them to it.. by drapeau06 · · Score: 1

      Isn't Bully from Rockstar Vancouver and isn't Bioware based in Edmonton? I guess Canadians are leaders in the production of homosexual video game content!

  12. No XBox/XBox360 by aesiamun · · Score: 1

    They didn't have a release for anything other than Sony PS2, so I won't be buying it.

    Oh well, not my loss...I just won't be buying it at all. :)

    1. Re:No XBox/XBox360 by iainl · · Score: 1

      YET. Wait 6 months, like you had to with GTA.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:No XBox/XBox360 by uofitorn · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Are you buying it or not?

      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
  13. Controversy by zoeblade · · Score: 1

    If I created and wanted to market a game, I would spend a few days programming and animating in something contraversal like this to use the current (and foolish) political climate for for advertisment.

    So the only thing missing in a game in which you have to beat up kids is controversy... Hmm... Yeah, kissing ought to fill that gap!

    1. Re:Controversy by dryriver · · Score: 1

      It is rather funny that two polygon characters kissing stirs up more controversy than people raining artillery strikes down on other players in the likes of BF2. Oh well. That's gaming for you.

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    2. Re:Controversy by SueAnnSueAnn · · Score: 0

      Just wait until one of them has a baby.

      Sue

      When it's Time it's Time,
      And
      It may be sooner then you think.

    3. Re:Controversy by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      Did I miss something? The Sims has had "homosexuality" in the game for over 6 years. Players could actually encourage their Sims to pair up with same-sex Sims and fall in love, kiss, etc. if they wanted. I do not remember any huge controversy about that. I don't know if that is available in Sims 2 or not, but why wouldn't it be? Why is this a big deal?

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  14. They have it wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's tea, earl grey, hot!

  15. Balance and equality by slim · · Score: 1

    I haven't played Bully, so I'm speculating wildly here, but here's my assumption:

    There's a "kiss" button combination, so if you stand in front of a girl and press it, you grab her and you kiss.

    Now, what happens if you stand in front of a boy and press the same buttons?

    It seems to me that if anything different happens, the developers have to explain why they're discriminating against homosexuality. The only fair and balanced thing to do is for the engine to treat boys and girls alike.

    The only remaining question is how the NPCs you try to kiss react. My guess, and the way I'd design it (not that I have any qualifications to design games) is that some female NPCs will fight you off and tell you to piss off, some female NPCs will be happy to kiss you, some male NPCs won't take kindly to it at all, while others will enjoy it.

    My neighbour's bought the game, so I expect I'll give it a try in a couple of weeks when he gets bored of it :)

    1. Re:Balance and equality by stevencbrown · · Score: 1

      wrong, I'm afraid.

      there is an action item that appears when you move close enough to someone. Depending on the target, different actions appear. Usually for males in the game, the kiss icon is replaced by a 'friendly chat' icon. For females, the kiss icon only appears after you've given them chocolate or flowers (greedy cows!).

      so you can't even try and kiss someone who isn't "available" accoring to the developers.

    2. Re:Balance and equality by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "There's a "kiss" button combination, so if you stand in front of a girl and press it, you grab her and you kiss."

      Not exactly. You have 'positive' and 'negative' button pushes. With most guys, if you walk up and hit the positive one, he'll say "whassup?" and the dude'll either say something nice back or insult you. With the femmes, you'll say something like "You sure are pretty!", and if that works, you have the option to give them flowers. I haven't bumped into the gay student yet, but I imagine it workst he same way. Instead of the "whassup?" icon you'll get the heart icon.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  16. Ugh.. by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    I seriously clicked on this article to read about some Slashdotter switching from caffinated coffee to tea, and the experience he/she went through. I read and now see it's about virtual boy on boy action.

    I wonder which situation would actually make more of an impact on the typical Slashdotter. =p

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Ugh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously clicked on this article

      Seriously...you seriously clicked on it thinking that.

      ...

      I think it is time we start having basic intelligence tests before allowing people to post on here.

    2. Re:Ugh.. by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you can studder with a keyboard, mate. =p

      Just kidding, I love you. HA! You don't know WHAT I said! Just leave. Don't worry, leave... this is all a dream.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  17. Attack by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    Oh, never underestimate the power of social "progressives" to find things to despise about videogames. And I'd wager this will pass beneath the notice of many social conservatives, who these days tend to only notice things that come in the form of movies or television. Videogames are assumed to be inherently evil, like music or books.

    Remarkably, it does seem to be the "left" that focuses on tearing down videogames ... which is just silly, if you think about it. Liberalism is supposed to emphasize being liberal, no matter whether the issue is gay rights or violent videogames, birth-control or gun ownership, pornography or hate speech (not that I'm suggesting conservatives endorse hate-propaganda; they just seem a bit more likely to consider it a form of protected speech).

    1. Re:Attack by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the left are liberals? Left is socialism, i.e. wanting the government to look out for the people. Liberalism is pretty much the opposite, wanting the government to stay out of everything and giving all power to the rich (which is what happens when you let money be the deciding power) rather than the elected.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  18. Thompson by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    It is starting to look more and more like maybe Jack Thompson is some kind of plant. It's not unlike the theory that the Westborough Baptist Church was actually founded to raise sympathy for homosexuals -- they're so ridiculously over-the-top that it gets easier and easier to hang on to the suspiscion that they're not for real.

    1. Re:Thompson by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Much as Westboro Baptist Church seems an agent provocateur, I really doubt that anyone would or could keep up that kind of front for year after year. These folks live in a walled compound, and they're so closed off that they're actually starting to inbreed. No one goes that far as an act.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:Thompson by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      These folks live in a walled compound, and they're so closed off that they're actually starting to inbreed. No one goes that far as an act.

      I dunno, I guess it would depend how hot my cousin was...

    3. Re:Thompson by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and Jack was also payed by 2 Live Crew to give that band ten times more media exposure than their craptacular act ever deserved.

      You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain it. Jack Thompson is really only about promoting one thing: Himself. Being "that crazy idiot who hates profane hip-hop/violent video games" has kept his name in headlines for well over a decade now, when otherwise nobody would know or care anything about "that useless lawyer that never wins any cases". The fact that the targets of his insane tirades and lawsuits generally benefit from the publicity is really just incidental to the main goal of him getting air time.

      Is there a name for the type of relationship in which the two entities are nominally enemies, but actually receive mutual benefit from each other's actions? I think that more accurately describes the situation.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  19. Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say, does anybody have the "Frothy Espresso" code for this game?

    I hear it's... well, like it sounds.

  20. This will cost Rockstar sales by ConfusedSelfHating · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Very few people want homosexual content in their games. There will be quite a number of people who were going to buy Bully and now they won't. The vast majority of heterosexual males are disgusted with homosexuality. This isn't something that liberals want to hear, but it's true. This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want. The standard reaction of the consumer is not to buy it.

    I'll give a non-homosexual example of where my digust for something made me regret a purchase. I watch a lot of movies in the theater. The movie Beloved had come out and I decided to go see it. There was one scene I was repulsed by. Oprah Winfrey urinating. God, I hope that was faked. It wasn't her sitting down and doing her business ... it was an arc of urine coming out from beneath her dress.

    So I don't like watching homosexuals kiss or watching Oprah pee. If a media product comes out which includes either, I will not purchase it.

    1. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What gets me is how a person gets labeled for not liking or agreeing with something...

      Homosexuality grosses me out, but then so does pedophilia and beasitality (I'm sorry, "Interspecies erotica"). Apparently finding such things gross makes a person some sort of biggot, hatemonger, or instantly diagnosed with a phobia of such things.

      I don't go telling how people should live their lives. Frankly I don't care. I just don't want it flaunted in my face. People running around in the streets shouting out they are different is just annoying. I don't care! Leave me alone! They respond with calling me names such as biggot and homophobe. Now tell me, who is attacking who here?

    2. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Very few people want homosexual content in their games.

      I point you in the direction of the multitude of patches for Baldur's Gate 2 that remove the gender restrictions on the romance subplots, and laugh in your face. Then I point you in the direction of Fallout 2, in which absolutely everybody in the game seems to be bi (at least for my 17-year-old female with high charisma and the Sex Appeal perk, anyway). And laugh in your face again. And I, for one, am always game for more of that sort of thing.

      Perhaps your problem is that this is boy-on-boy? Well, I don't think you have to go around kissing the boys at school if you don't want to. You know how open-ended these games usually are. Just stick to the girls if you're feeling insecure.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Very few people want homosexual content in their games. There will be quite a number of people who were going to buy Bully and now they won't. The vast majority of heterosexual males are disgusted with homosexuality. This isn't something that liberals want to hear, but it's true. This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want. The standard reaction of the consumer is not to buy it.

      If it was a game where homo-smooches were a major component, you might almost have a point. But this is one thing in a game that is otherwise devoid of any more homo-eroticism than there already was in the dominance games of boys in school.

      I have a suggestion: If you don't want to kiss a boy, then try refraining from going around trying to kiss boys. It's that simple.

      I do find it kinda funny to suggest that you're having this 'forced' on you, as if having the feature in the game means you will be irresistably drawn to it (insert joke about homophobia/repressed homosexuality here).

      On the same note, I'm not a big fan of the "pick up a whore" feature of GTA... so I refrain from picking up whores. Magical.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of heterosexual males are disgusted with homosexuality.

      So instead of simply avoiding the choices in-game that lead to the main character kissing other males, they'll not buy it. LOLZ at them.

    5. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by WombatDeath · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of heterosexual males are disgusted with homosexuality. This isn't something that liberals want to hear, but it's true. This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want. The standard reaction of the consumer is not to buy it.

      My counter-suggestion, similarly based on wild conjecture, is that most people care much less than you do. For reference: well, anything popular that has homosexuality in it somewhere. Take your pick.

      I think that the arena of armchair hypothesis favours my speculation over yours, in this instance.

    6. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want.

      Ohnoes! You can optionally kiss a boy! Now that I know I can offer flowers to a boy in the game, I simply can't resist, I'm somehow compelled by the homosexual agenda! I'm being forced get flowers, to track down a gay character, and offer the flowers to that character! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

      Meanwhile in reality, the gay kiss isn't "forced" on the player any more than the straight kissing also possible in the game is forced on the player. Advancement through the core plotlines doesn't require the kiss. If you don't think to offer flowers to a boy in the game, it simply won't happen. Perhaps you're right that most Americans are homophobic, but refusing to play the game because you can, if you chose, kiss a boy is like refusing to interact with other people because you can, if you chose, kiss a boy.

      The news coverage of this is nowhere near the level of that of Hot Coffee, so many gamers will never know of this functionality. Those who do tend to be more "hard core" gamers, and while some do reject games based on foolish perceptions ("Nintendo is only for little kids"), many buy anything that's good. Ultimately Bully will succeed or fail on the strength of its game play, and some very mild kissing isn't going to impact sales in a measurable either way.

    7. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by drapeau06 · · Score: 1

      You are almost certainly correct that this will cost the company some sales. Of course, with so many games allowing homosexual behaviour these days (e.g., all games with multi-player options that allow some freedom of avatar interaction and/or interactive chat amongst players), die-hard bigots have few games to choose from these days.

      Even if you are correct that "very few people want homosexual content in their games", that number (and the number of extra customers that the company will gain through the inclusion of this optional content) may well be greater than the number of would-be customers that take their money elsewhere on the principle of bigotry.

      This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want.

      Not really.

      Your example from Beloved is not on point: in that case it was impossible for you to see the whole movie without seeing that scene. In the case of Bully, it is my understanding that you can play through the entire game (many times!) without choosing to engage in the homosexual experiences it offers.

    8. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by ALeavitt · · Score: 1

      What about a game where you have the freedom to commit both heterosexual and homosexual acts? Isn't that better, and ultimately more freeing, than a game that allows a Kiss command on characters but grays it out for some? This is much like the complaint lobbied against GTA that it rewards players for random violence against civilians and whores. While it allows that violence, it could hardly be said that it rewards it. It simply allows the player the freedom to do what he wants. If the player were to try to punch a whore and the game didn't allow it, I would consider that to be a much greater flaw in the game than too much freedom. I think that your homophobia is getting in the way of your seeing that the game is all about freedom and choices... just like real life. If you don't like homosexual kissing, no one's making you do it.

      --
      This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
    9. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People running around in the streets shouting out they are different is just annoying.

      Like people who rig/paint confederate flags on their pickup trucks?

    10. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I think that statistic that the majority of heterosexual males are repulsed by homosexual kissing is pulled out of your ass. Not only that, but not all heterosexual males are gamers, so if we say male gamers (to not included the female gamers who probably don't care, and would assist my argument anyways, most likely) - of the many gamers I know, fully 40% are gay or bisexual(possibly more than that, that's the ones that are open about it), not sure why the gay/bisexual population likes games so much, or why gamers are so prone to experimenting with any homosexual thoughts they might have though. It's possible also that my numbers are skewed because I'm a bisexual gamer, but in any case, to claim that sales will decrease because of this news is a bit hasty - press is press, and while there are bigots who will refuse to buy a game because of the option to kiss another man exists, there are people who might buy it solely because of hearing this news, not because gay porn is hard to come by, but because it's now a conversation piece.

      This is far from the first game with the possibility for men to kiss men either, Final Fantasy 7 allows you to go on a date with a man if you want to (just don't talk to Tifa or Aeris unless it's plot progressing and when you get to the golden casino place you can choose to go on the date with Barret instead of one of them).

    11. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by Mwongozi · · Score: 1

      This is about forcing something on the consumer that they don't want.

      Rubbish. You, the player, are given the choice of kissing another boy in the game. If that offends you... don't!

    12. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like people who rig/paint confederate flags on their pickup trucks?

      Well that is passive expression versus agressive expression such as having loud obnoxious parades. If someone has a rainbow flag on their vehicle or even hanging in front of their home or whatever, I'm not bothered because that is also passive expression. However, having rallys/parades (on either side of the issue) is what bothers me. I don't want to see hatemongers any more than I want to see half naked or crossedressed people parading about shouting their opinions. Its all the same to me. Everyone is set in their ways and aren't gonna change because you raise your voice to an obnoxious level and get in their face. Tollerance is a good thing. Forcebly trying to get people to accept the abnormal as normal is not.

    13. Re:This will cost Rockstar sales by dangitman · · Score: 1
      The vast majority of heterosexual males are disgusted with homosexuality.

      Those guys tend to be repressed gays. They have a fascination with homosexuality, which is why they feel "disgusted." It's actually latent attraction.

      After all, why would a heterosexual guy dislike homosexuality? It means there are more women to go around!

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  21. True...Damage control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""I'm sorry, no thanks, they make me insecure about my sexuality."
    "...""

    Too late for that.

  22. Before that, even... by meringuoid · · Score: 1

    Long before KOTOR, remember Fallout 2? Not only are there gay sexual encounters, there's actually the possibility of a gay wedding. In fact, a gay shotgun wedding. And, later on, a gay divorce.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:Before that, even... by Shipwack · · Score: 1

      There's a lesbian sexual encounter early in Fallout 1, though I think you had to be a female character.

      Where's the power of the internets now? There has to be a page somewhere detailing gays in video games...

      (hmmm... ctr-t, type in search box...)

      Voila! Should have known it'd be a wikipedia entry. Take with the usual wiki grain of salt.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay,_lesbian,_bisexua l,_and_transgender_characters_in_video_and_compute r_games

      Plus...

      http://www.games.net/features/100321_1.shtml

      And for just sex in general (though the first page might be "disturbing" to some...

      http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/sexual-games/10 .php

  23. SimCopter by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    I think I brought this up in a Hot Coffee thread a long time ago, and I'm stating it here again because I didn't notice that anyone else had done so yet.

    Long ago, SimCopter included an unplanned easter egg that featured semi-nude male NPCs running around kissing. The guy who included it in the game--it wasn't planned or discussed with the rest of the team, it seems--was fired supposedly for the unauthorized inclusion, not for its content. That, at least, is how I understood what happened.

    Now, nobody really complained about that to the n-th degree as we're about to/are seeing with Bully. Was it because these were supposedly grown men instead of kids? Was it because we are so much more sensitive these days? Was it because there wasn't anyone around to stir the pot of controversy? Was it because the target audiences were different?

    1. Re:SimCopter by Meatloaf+Surprise · · Score: 1

      No, it was because SimCopter wasn't a very popular game. And, once they discovered the 'easter egg', which wasn't long after release, they patched it so only the early versions of the game include this--as apposed to millions of versions of gta.

    2. Re:SimCopter by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, he got fired because it's a WCB violation to be around whirring blades without adequate safety equipment.

      Never mind getting "caught" in the rotor - all characters have to wear reflective vests and helmets when near working helicopters.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    3. Re:SimCopter by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

      Part of that was also because the graphics literally made it difficult to tell just what was happening. I played a lot of Sim Copter, and I didn't realize I was looking at gay men in thongs kissing each other until I read about it later on. They just kind of looked like blobs.

      --
      Gamertag: WyleType
  24. Oh, please... by Deagol · · Score: 1
    The Sims and The Sims 2 were two of the all-time best sellig games in history, and you can do all sorts of things w/ same-sex interactions. Hasn't seemed to have an impact on sales one bit.

    (Somewhat related: Jack Thompson also thinks that Sims 2 is a pedophile's dream-come-true, as well, since you can remove the pixel blur for children and even apply third-party skins with teh boobies! Somebody please think of the virtual children!!!)

  25. Bigotry -- bullshit by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

    Pointing out bigotry.. is not itself bigotry.

    But, don't let that stop you fucking asshats replying to the OP.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:Bigotry -- bullshit by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Pointing out bigotry.. is not itself bigotry.

      According to dictionary.com, a "bigot" is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Finding homosexuality offensive is an opinion (or possibly belief, if the opinion is based on religion). Being intolerant of other people's opinions is bigotry. Therefore, the OP's statement is in itself bigotry.

      That's the problem with being very tolerant of other people's values: how do you deal with people who are not tolerant ? Will you tolerate them, in which case they will oppress others, or do you stop them, in which case you oppress them ? Should considering homosexuality an abomination make you eligible to be burned on a stake, figuratively or literally ? And if yes, then what - besides switching victims - has truly changed ?

      But, don't let that stop you fucking asshats replying to the OP.

      Now that's a logical and persuasive argument. Have you been sparing it just for me ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Bigotry -- bullshit by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      Wow, the idiocy knows no bounds, apparently.

      I'm going to draw up an analogy, since people *still* can't deal with homosexuality rationally.

      Instead of homosexuality, how about race?

      -Bully - a game developed by Rockstar that features black people.
      -People complain about there being black people in the game.

      OP: Anyone who finds it offensive(that the game features black people) should be considered a bigot.
      You: No, you're a bigot.
      Me: Bullshit. He was pointing out bigotry, doesn't make him a bigot.
      You: Blah blah blah

      Yeah... I don't buy that. Sorry.

      If you want to play silly semantic games, go ahead. It has no useful value though.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    3. Re:Bigotry -- bullshit by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Damn- I hate to see you go down in flames here.

      This is /., you needed to use a bad car analogy to prove your point.

      The slashtrolls will not work with you here- give us a bad car analogy we can pick apart for about 3 or 4 hundred comments.

      This reminds me; Are you new here?

      LOL!- I get your point, just had to point out the obvious.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:Bigotry -- bullshit by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1
      I feel like I'm in an episode of Southpark.


      OP: Anyone who finds it offensive(that the game features black people) should be considered a bigot.
      You: No, you're a bigot.
      Me: Bullshit. He was pointing out bigotry, doesn't make him a bigot.

      Cartman: Shut up Jew.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
  26. virtual boy? by tepples · · Score: 1
    I read and now see it's about virtual boy on boy action.

    Nintendo's bringing back the virtual boy? Is Nintendo actually making a VR helmet for Wii?

  27. Full disclosure by ConfusedSelfHating · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying that Bully should be banned. But there should be full disclosure of homosexual content. This would allow gamers and parents buying games for their children to make a fully informed decision. Just as Gears of War should have a label stating "intense bloody violence" on it. I like games with brutal violence, but I understand that many people don't. If Mario suddenly ripped off Luigi's head and started raping the eye sockets, there are many people who would be unpleasantly surprised.

    My counter-suggestion, similarly based on wild conjecture, is that most people care much less than you do. For reference: well, anything popular that has homosexuality in it somewhere. Take your pick.

    Homosexuals don't tend to be major characters in film and television. It's usually a gay guy who is the platonic friend of a heterosexual woman. I have heard that there are quite a number of gay independent films, but they are probably watched by a mostly gay audience. When is the last time you watched an action in which the hero and his boyfriend saved the day. Most people don't want to watch a movie in which a gay James Bond sleeps with a bunch of guys while preventing the Earth from imploding. Yet a heterosexual James Bond who sleeps with a bunch of women has resulted in 20+ movies over 50+ years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_bond/. One set of movies get made, the other doesn't see the light of day. The only popular depiction of gay sexuality is when two heterosexual women are paid money to have gay sex with each other, simulated or otherwise. And then quickly leave each other when there are men available.

    Ironically enough, the Hot Coffee scandal is a completely different animal from the Bully scandal. The simulated sex games were never meant to be available to the public, while the Bully gay kissing doesn't require a mod to access. And Bully gets a Teen rating.

    1. Re:Full disclosure by RsG · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying that Bully should be banned. But there should be full disclosure of homosexual content.
      Being in the news (as in TFA) isn't full disclosure? Given how many idiot parents can't seem to read the ESRB labels, I'd say having this in the news will alert more people to the "objectionable" content than any label would.

      If Mario suddenly ripped off Luigi's head and started raping the eye sockets
      ...then the game would get a AO rating, and nobody would stock it. How many hetai games can you buy at your local EB?

      The system works fine for nudity, sex, extreme violence and other content that people get riled up about. If anything, games are held to a higher standard than movies or TV; Wal-mart & co will stock R rated movie, but balks at M rated games. If movies aren't required (by law or by common practice) to have a "Warning: men kissing" label, then why on earth would games?

      Plus, you can't skip content in a movie except by fast forwarding, whereas you can avoid content in a game. Fallout 1&2 let me gun down innocent children, yet oddly I somehow I've never chosen to do so. Does the fact I can make the game wrong in some way, or is it my choice whether to play as a good or evil character? Likewise, bully doesn't require you to kiss boys. If you do, then it is implicitly assumed that you are playing your character as though he was gay. The decision is yours, which is more than a movie allows.

      And Bully gets a Teen rating.
      It has no carnage. No serious violence. No nudity. And no depictions of sexuality beyond kissing (which is below the radar of the ESRB). Why would it get a rating higher than teen?
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Full disclosure by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      Most people don't want to watch a movie in which a gay James Bond sleeps with a bunch of guys while preventing the Earth from imploding.

      Hmm, well "Spy Boy" did lead to the sequel "Spy Boy 2", but yeah, that was a rather limited audience...

  28. Me too. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    Ohnoes! You can optionally kiss a boy! Now that I know I can offer flowers to a boy in the game, I simply can't resist, I'm somehow compelled by the homosexual agenda! I'm being forced get flowers, to track down a gay character, and offer the flowers to that character! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

    The same thing happened to me.

    Here is a flower.
    @}----
    So, uh, do you want to go get some dinner?

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  29. Maybe it's an accidental include. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    First, there's nothing wrong with being gay.

    There's also nothing wrong with being a lazy programmer. (If you make games.)

    So let's suppose you've got to create a sprite for your game. You like the girls better, so you code them first. There's nothing wrong with that. I can relate. You've then got to create a matching set of male characters.

    Do you:
    1. Create all the male characters from scratch?

    2. Copy the female characters into the male directory, reuse a lot of the code like the gestures, dialog options, friendship level, affiliation, etc., and just change the names, skins, voicepacks, and just quickly change this one flag from hey lunchtime and then compile?

    If in the event of the extremely likely #2, they could never admit to the mistake nor fix it.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    1. Re:Maybe it's an accidental include. by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Hardly accidental; there are several lines of voiceover dialog for it. Those voice actors don't just say random lines (yet... Tom Baker (Dr. Who) did a mammoth recording session for British Telecom which you can get him to say anything in text to speech, but AFAIK all modern games use prerecorded lines rather than phonemes).