Instead a solid law that someone wants to pass should focus on the retail clerks, but most of the laws being passed around target the producer and the fact remains they are not the point of sale, they are just the creators.
Uh, no, actually these laws have been focusing on the points of sale/rental, as they attempted to regulate the purchase of the games, not the production. They failed anyway, partly because of the "chilling effects" argument and partly because of the lack of evidence showing that the state has a compelling interest in regulating what games kids can play.
This is like a violent movie. No one really tries to shut down Saw or Hostel. No one goes after the director, or the movie company, instead the laws focus on the MPAA and the movie theaters it's shown in. That's acceptable.
Nope, no such laws exist (at least not in America), and if passed would be found unconstitutional just as quickly and easily as the game laws were. The MPAA ratings carry zero force of law, and restrictions on minors enterting theaters are set by the theaters themselves at their own discretion; no governmental enforcement here.
but we've reached a point where everything has to be allowed.
No, we started at that point.
There is no need for entertainment to use foul language or blood and gore just for the sake of it.
Same goes for using the name of God or Jesus or lewdness.
This is not escape from realisim, just more of the same.
And that justifies any legal restrictions on games...how, exactly?
I suppose they might seek to force Sony via court order to start some kind of program to collect PS3's from private customers who voluntarily turn them in, but unless they're completely insane that's as far as they could expect to get with privately held consoles. Most likely the impoundment they seek is that of Sony's unsold stock, and maybe retailers' stock as well.
Poor example. Jar Jar was an extraneous, poorly-conceived character and would have dragged the film down just as badly were he a rubber suit instead of a CGI toon. CGI didn't ruin Episode 1, bad writing and direction did.
Back when the games industry was based on creativity and not goreporn, the shelves were full of interesting, well-crafted games which succeeded based on the merits of their gameplay and the quality of their content instead of the degree to which they satisfied the bestial bloodlust of the left side of the bell curve.
Take of those rose-colored glasses when you're looking at the past, and you'll realize that it was exactly the same back then as it is now: islands of quality product in a vast sea of crap. Game publishers were every bit as profit-motivated and every bit as apathetic towards quality of gameplay in the early 80's (or the mid-90's, or whatever era you had picked out as the mythical Golden Age Of Gaming[TM]) as they are today.
Lots of good stuff and lots more bad stuff no matter what time period you look at. This applies equally to film, books, music, and in fact every single form of human expression ever developed, starting when Ug and Og realized it was fun to bang rocks together in a rythm.
Sadly, the project was cut short when the mice intentionally reversed the treatments, having found themselves unable to relate to their newly-lovestruck trainers.
It's bad enough that even the movie didn't clarify... if it was Eowyn (the woman) or Merry (the Hobbit) who finally did in the Witch King (who no man may hinder!).
Granted I haven't seen the movie in a couple of years, but I think Eowyn ramming a sword through his face answered that question fairly well.
Arresting the parents? No, that's just as bad. A parent is perfectly capable of deciding whether his kid's ready to play GTA. The government has no business telling him otherwise.
There aren't any laws against showing R-rated movies to minors, and any such laws would be struck down on the same Constitutional grounds as the numerous game laws were.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I don't think it was meant to be a troll. It sounded more like a commentary on the kind of mentalities you have to develop to survive a combat situation than like "lol muzlims r not humin".
im guessing it partly has to do with the legal issue of obtaining the rights to use it, which would probably be impossible as im sure the city of new york wouldnt want to be associated with a game like GTA.
They wouldn't need anyone's permission to set the game in NYC if they wanted to; it's not like the city itself is copyrighted or its name trademarked. Using a fictional city simply allows for a greater degree of creative flexibility. It's how they've always done GTA.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if I shot you for threatening to scratch my car, walking towards my wife with your hands in your pockets, or tripping on the sidewalk and stepping on my grass, you'd present me with a thumbs up before your body hit the ground.
You don't understand him correctly. Or, more likely, you're deliberately misrepresenting his argument. The GP was quite clear that he considered killing an attacker to be a last-resort measure. The fact that he considers it an option at all does not mean he (or anyone else of like mind) is looking for excuses to kill anyone. Nor does it mean that, as you dishonestly implied, that they "don't value life" or have "not taken the time" to learn less-lethal methods of home defense. Those inferences are entirely your own.
And it still made everything else in the RPG market look like garbage.
Eh. Fable was okay, but KOTOR kicked its ass up and down the street in both dramatics and gameplay. Furthermore, the "good/evil choice" mechanics in Fable (which were supposed to be the focus of the whole game) were clumsy and ham-handed compared to the ones from KOTOR (which were only so-so to begin with).
Now Lionhead's got major corporate backing that frees up Molyneux to concentrate on the GAME instead of running the company.
That could go either way. George Lucas has shown us what can happen when the mastermind of a large creative project gets too involved in the details of its execution.
So pardon me if I think it doesn't really matter how much they cut. Fable 2 is going to beat the everloving shit out of everything else.
And pardon me if I point out that you've provided no reason to think this will necessarily be the case. Mass Effect is, by every account I've seen, shaping up to be pretty good, and Bioware has a good track record of consistent quality. Molyneux...not so much.
if you get in an altercation with someone and call them a nigger the cop WILL arrest you right away for a hate crime. this is an absolute fact in everyplace but the deep south.
If it's an "absolute fact", then surely you can provide extensive proof that this is the case. Or even, you know, any at all.
You cannot offend people in the US any longer. It is illegal. It is called a "hate crime".
Bullshit. Hate crime laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed, but acting as though it's "illegal to offend people" is dishonest hyperbole at best.
Slashdot Mirror
But not in that order.
I suppose they might seek to force Sony via court order to start some kind of program to collect PS3's from private customers who voluntarily turn them in, but unless they're completely insane that's as far as they could expect to get with privately held consoles. Most likely the impoundment they seek is that of Sony's unsold stock, and maybe retailers' stock as well.
Also incorrect: False dichotomies.
Poor example. Jar Jar was an extraneous, poorly-conceived character and would have dragged the film down just as badly were he a rubber suit instead of a CGI toon. CGI didn't ruin Episode 1, bad writing and direction did.
Take of those rose-colored glasses when you're looking at the past, and you'll realize that it was exactly the same back then as it is now: islands of quality product in a vast sea of crap. Game publishers were every bit as profit-motivated and every bit as apathetic towards quality of gameplay in the early 80's (or the mid-90's, or whatever era you had picked out as the mythical Golden Age Of Gaming[TM]) as they are today.
Lots of good stuff and lots more bad stuff no matter what time period you look at. This applies equally to film, books, music, and in fact every single form of human expression ever developed, starting when Ug and Og realized it was fun to bang rocks together in a rythm.
Sadly, the project was cut short when the mice intentionally reversed the treatments, having found themselves unable to relate to their newly-lovestruck trainers.
Every country has really fucked up politics. Ours are just more visible at the moment.
Arresting the parents? No, that's just as bad. A parent is perfectly capable of deciding whether his kid's ready to play GTA. The government has no business telling him otherwise.
There aren't any laws against showing R-rated movies to minors, and any such laws would be struck down on the same Constitutional grounds as the numerous game laws were.
Please switch sides, or at least stop making up statistics. You're not helping.
No.
Or maybe it's because selling said games to kids is not illegal.
Many kinds of people play MMO's. Only one kind, however, makes broad generalizations and states opinion as fact.
I don't think it was meant to be a troll. It sounded more like a commentary on the kind of mentalities you have to develop to survive a combat situation than like "lol muzlims r not humin".
They wouldn't need anyone's permission to set the game in NYC if they wanted to; it's not like the city itself is copyrighted or its name trademarked. Using a fictional city simply allows for a greater degree of creative flexibility. It's how they've always done GTA.
You don't understand him correctly. Or, more likely, you're deliberately misrepresenting his argument. The GP was quite clear that he considered killing an attacker to be a last-resort measure. The fact that he considers it an option at all does not mean he (or anyone else of like mind) is looking for excuses to kill anyone. Nor does it mean that, as you dishonestly implied, that they "don't value life" or have "not taken the time" to learn less-lethal methods of home defense. Those inferences are entirely your own.
Eh. Fable was okay, but KOTOR kicked its ass up and down the street in both dramatics and gameplay. Furthermore, the "good/evil choice" mechanics in Fable (which were supposed to be the focus of the whole game) were clumsy and ham-handed compared to the ones from KOTOR (which were only so-so to begin with).
That could go either way. George Lucas has shown us what can happen when the mastermind of a large creative project gets too involved in the details of its execution.
And pardon me if I point out that you've provided no reason to think this will necessarily be the case. Mass Effect is, by every account I've seen, shaping up to be pretty good, and Bioware has a good track record of consistent quality. Molyneux...not so much.
If it's an "absolute fact", then surely you can provide extensive proof that this is the case. Or even, you know, any at all.