Guantanimo Bay is holding prisoners of war. They are not afforded the same rights that a U.S. citizen is. Honestly, after you said that I really couldn't take much of everything else you said seriously. All the people currently being detained there didn't say something to get there - they were actively fighting against our troops in a fucking war.
Alright, I'll mostly agree with what you've said. I don't know if there's a link between video games and becoming a worse person, as you put it. All I know is that I do not believe these types of games/movies/music/books do not have an effect on me that would make me loose my grip on reality or start to believe that murder is an appropriate means to an end.
I agree that there should be a reaction and I think it's already happened in the form of the ESRB. People can see what type of game they're getting into before they make a purchase. Now, you don't want to play games like Manhunt. I might, [I don't know about the gameplay so I can't say that I really want to - but know this, I can be just as happy playing GTA as I can playing Animal Crossing, so it doesn't run my life. I think this type of material could potentially be damaging if it is all you are exposed to.] So why take that chance away from me because you don't want it? I think government censorship is completely out of question. What is wrong with a ratings system? Government censorship is a slippery slope. Who determines what's appropriate and what is not? Eventually, this could landslide out of control to the point where media becomes the mouthpiece of the government. I know there aren't any video games that criticize the War in Iraq but if there were [and such a thing could happen], couldn't the government censor that if you start to give them this sweeping power to say what you can and cannot play? I think so. (And this is coming from someone who supports the War In Iraq.)
Personal choices are great. You made one regarding Cornwell - that's great. Let's have more of that; personal responsibility and personal choices. No need for the government to step in.
Okay then, use the Red Dragon. I didn't see the film but I read the book. Starling's character in that book allows Lecter to go on the loose and commit murder. She is an accessory at best. And there's a romance that blossoms between Starling and Lecter. Given your premise that we're supposed to identify with Starling - she's a murderer in that chronicle. Still a big difference?
If that doesn't suit you, I was trying to stay close to the original comment, I can dig up other popular films where the main character is a murderer. It's not that you're supposed to identify with the guy in Manhunt, I would think that you're supposed to experience a completely different point of view than one you are used to. Take the film or book 'American Psycho' if you want. There's really only one character whose fully fleshed out and that is Bateman, the serial killer. There are plenty of books and films that focus on the exploits of evil people. You're ignoring the fact that video games are just recently becoming a medium where realistic violence can be simulated - these topics of censorship have already been dealt with in books, film, and music. It's generally thought that there is no direct link between violent entertainment and violent behavior - a person has to have other problems going on in their head in order to be affected to commit violence. So as the video game industry matures, alarmist views like yours who can't see that video games are just another entertainment medium, will fall by the wayside, I believe.
You say Manhunt shouldn't exist but then ask me whether a 10 year old should be playing Manhunt. There's a big difference between limiting who can buy a game and removing a game completely from store shelves. I think most adults are mature enough people to enjoy a violent video game and not lose their marbles over it. Likewise, I'm not endorsing letting children play these games. I haven't played Manhunt so I don't know if the ESRB should have rated it Adults Only. I'm sure it deserved the Mature label at least, which it got. So which are you supporting? Removing the game from store shelves completely or preventing children from gaining access to it?
And as for your free speech argument - as soon as you start deciding what types of speech can and cannot be free, you're no longer allowing free speech. Let people write all the snuff fantasies they want. Let the Ku Klux Klan organize and gather all they want. Let them all have their voice. As soon as you start saying, you aren't allowed to say such things - people begin getting interested in it. For instance, the Ku Klux Klan is shown on shows like Jerry Springer and is seen as a laughingstock. If the government supressed them then people would wonder about what their message was and an underground movement would begin. I think part of the reason that Germany still has to deal with people spouting Nazi views is that they are trying so hard to prevent anyone from saying anything along those lines. No, US-style free speech is not "a little fucked up", it is the only way free speech is of any value whatsoever. You don't get to pick and choose what people are allowed to say if speech is free.
If you're so sure that there is no link between violence in video games and violent behavior in real life, why should the game be banned?
That doesn't logically follow from the rest of what you've written. You say that the parents are ignorant and that kids should not play Manhunt. I agree, parents are not doing their job. So what you propose is for the government to step in and do the jobs of parents but also prevent anyone who long ago moved out of their parents' house from getting the game as well? Pardon me but if some parents are doing a poor job, you don't allow the government to become the parent of everyone. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes, there are differences between the driving gameplay of GTA and Manhunt. There's a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You might think government censorship is a good way to protect everyone but that's just a way for the government to ensure that it is the only voice - Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia spring to mind as two countries which used government intervention to ensure that only the voice of the government could be heard by the people. [Yes, it is a video game. Yes, it is not really a political message. Yes, it is a first step towards further censorship. You give an inch, the government takes it today. They'll be back tomorrow for another inch. At what point will you stand up?]
You seem a little young so if any of this went over your head, just reply with what confused you and I'll try to clear it up.
Given that you haven't even played the game and you've decided that no one should play it - what is your basis? The fact that there is photo-realistic violence? Do you support the idea that no one should see movies like Halloween or the Silence of the Lambs? Both clearly have photo realistic violence and are not intended to be taken in any sort of humorous way. You could argue that in movies, it is a passive medium and in a video game, you have control over what the character does.
But since you haven't played the game, that argument doesn't hold any water. You don't know how one interacts and at what level the interaction is. Before you go deciding that no one should be playing violent games, maybe you should do a little research and find out if there's ever been a link established between violent games and deviant behavior.
Sure, if Manhunt isn't your cup of tea, don't buy it. But rather than trying to judge whether anyone should be playing it or whether it should have been made, why not just let the free market determine the best route? [Since you're not going to prove a link between violent games and violent behavior in people who weren't already prone to such behavior.] If no one buys games that, in your opinion, shouldn't have been made, games like this won't be made.
I live in the United States where freedom of speech is a right - this includes violent video games.
Re:Temperature is not an issue
on
Sub-Zero Squirrels
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You may be completely correct. The only possible explanation of why this is more interesting than those fish (and I may be off in left field with this - so correct me if I am) aren't mammals. A squirrel is interesting because it is a mammal. Obviously the hibernation situation is the big step but I guess I see this as proof of concept that an animal similar to humans, moreso than fish anyway, can survive below freezing. Thanks for your comment nonetheless.
The type of situation you describe is something that would obviously be covered by a warning on any possible product this technology leads to. So they can sue all they want and when it's quickly thrown out because there was a clear and explicit warning on the package, they can pay the defense bills of the company who released the game. And just remember, I could be a lawyer! This is Slashdot, you never know.
First off, I hate the abbreviation "digicam"; it seems far too similar to digimon. Now, you don't want to go making people think you like anime, do you?
Second of all, why would I only be able to view photographs taken with a digital camera? Wouldn't any photograph that's been encoded in a digital format be viewable, given the correct software? For instance, 35 mm film can be processed and then digitized through the use of what we in the know call "scanners" - would you like to know more?
I posted a bit prematurely BUT I think people should write to Rockstar and let them know that caving to special interest groups does not make the people who buy their games happy. I want the developers of GTA4 to have full reign and know that the company will back them up with whatever they produce. I don't want self-censorship to be going on.
Fun but the replay value is limited by people seeing the trick. Better to just wait till everyone has been enjoying the liquor for a bit and then bust out the fire hose. Extra points if you bust in on people in the copy room bumping uglies and spray them like dogs on a lawn.
I think everyone is surprised because Rockstar caved.
You're right - no one should be surprised about the uproar over it. Of course, the uproar is a bit late since the game has been out for so long now but we'll just ignore that fact. Doing anything that isn't P.C. is a good way to get people upset but Rockstar really should have stood up for itself. People do not have the right to not be offended. If there is a group of Haitians who find the game offensive (out of context of course), they are free not to buy the game and quit their whining.
Corporate Office
Address Phone Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. 622 Broadway, New York, NY 10012 (646) 536-2842
International Headquarters
Address Phone Take Two UK Saxon House 4 Victoria Street, Windsor, Bershire SL4 1EN 01753 496 600
Primary Subsidiaries
Address Rockstar Games, Inc. 575 Broadway, New York, NY 10012 Gotham Games, Inc. 622 Broadway, New York, NY 10012 Gathering of Developers 9900 Franklin Square Drive, Suite A Baltimore, MD 21236
Sales Department - (646) 536-2842
Public Relations James Ankner - Take-Two (Investors & Media Relations) - (646) 536-3006 Jeff Castaneda - Rockstar Games - (212) 334-6633 x217 Anne Marie Sims - Gathering - (410) 933-9191 x108
Who wants to register boycottgta.com and get Rockstar to take a stand for their right to publish what they want to publish? This is complete garbage and I am amazed and sickened that they bowed to the pressure.
Rockstar was getting pressure from mainstream groups who took the game out of context - are these the people who are driving sales of their game? No, it is the devoted gamer and they're bowing to pressure from the group that doesn't create their profits. It's time that Rockstar and Take Two remembered who butters their bread. All this will do is remove the heat from the censorship groups and replace it with heat from gamers offended by Rockstar's lack of a spine - and gamers getting angry hurts their bottom line.
Big mistake, I think. I will not buy another Rockstar product unless they reverse their position.
It's a shame Rob Malda is so damn uninterested in answering questions posted by readers of Slashdot - otherwise I might be able to find out what the deal is and actually subscribe. Of course, the editors seem to look at the readers are a nuisance who they owe nothing to.
you're right, i wasn't really invested in the argument that online play is very profitable at this point. just that it would have been really nice to see it included and that i think online gaming is going to get much bigger in the future.
maybe i'm just releasing some steam over online play not being included? because i've got a friend from college who keeps e-mailing me and talking up his mario kart game when i know that i could easily send him packing with his tail between his legs but we probably won't hang out till new years eve and i'll, in all likelihood, be hammered. now if he ponys up and gets hammered too then i'll win BUT...if he decides to play strategically and plays against me sober, he's got a shot. so basically, i want to give out an ass-kicking remotely now so it can be done and the mouthy e-mails can stop.
There's a difference between using a service and enjoying the service you receive from it and trusting the people running it. For instance, there might be some guy on the street selling a widget. They look like decent widgets and are cheap. I want the widget badly enough to give the guy five dollars but don't trust the guy enough to give him my credit card information. Can you see the difference? I hope you can relate this to Slashdot.
As for the rest of your comment regarding AC posts, I didn't say it was a bad thing I was merely pointing out that it was not a well-represented fact that AC posts were tied to user accounts. I want to know exactly how my data is treated in regards to my account before I just give it out.
Finally, yes - I do quite a bit of research before I trust an online retailer.
I think that as broadband makes further penetrations, the percentage playing online will go up. Think about it - gaming on the PC has had internet play connectivity for longer than the console market. At first, not many people took advantage of it and just played the game single player. But as people experiment with it, they find that it is an enjoyable addition to the game playing experience and recommend it to their friends. Sure, it may be a bit of a dead end in this generation but I think the next generation of consoles will see over half of the multi-player games being released, designed for online play.
And why bother spending the time? To give the end users the best possible experience they could have. Nintendo's philosophy has always been about giving the customer the best experience and the most fun - which I've respected - and I think online play would enhance that fun, that's why. Maybe they won't make a ton of money off it and it will cost them time and resources but they'd deliver a better product. It seems like Nintendo has always been the type of company where that mattered - maybe management has changed...
If I were to subscribe, would my Slashdot user name then be tied to my name and address? I know that AC comments are tied to subscriptions if you post them while logged in but how does the billing information and the user data tie together.
I think this is a fairly important question and would like to see an editor answer it. If user names are then tied to name and address by subscribing, count me out.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the book and then I'll have a discussion with you about how you can identify with Bateman.
And what's your bit about hate crimes?
I agree that there should be a reaction and I think it's already happened in the form of the ESRB. People can see what type of game they're getting into before they make a purchase. Now, you don't want to play games like Manhunt. I might, [I don't know about the gameplay so I can't say that I really want to - but know this, I can be just as happy playing GTA as I can playing Animal Crossing, so it doesn't run my life. I think this type of material could potentially be damaging if it is all you are exposed to.] So why take that chance away from me because you don't want it? I think government censorship is completely out of question. What is wrong with a ratings system? Government censorship is a slippery slope. Who determines what's appropriate and what is not? Eventually, this could landslide out of control to the point where media becomes the mouthpiece of the government. I know there aren't any video games that criticize the War in Iraq but if there were [and such a thing could happen], couldn't the government censor that if you start to give them this sweeping power to say what you can and cannot play? I think so. (And this is coming from someone who supports the War In Iraq.)
Personal choices are great. You made one regarding Cornwell - that's great. Let's have more of that; personal responsibility and personal choices. No need for the government to step in.
You see what I'm saying?
If that doesn't suit you, I was trying to stay close to the original comment, I can dig up other popular films where the main character is a murderer. It's not that you're supposed to identify with the guy in Manhunt, I would think that you're supposed to experience a completely different point of view than one you are used to. Take the film or book 'American Psycho' if you want. There's really only one character whose fully fleshed out and that is Bateman, the serial killer. There are plenty of books and films that focus on the exploits of evil people. You're ignoring the fact that video games are just recently becoming a medium where realistic violence can be simulated - these topics of censorship have already been dealt with in books, film, and music. It's generally thought that there is no direct link between violent entertainment and violent behavior - a person has to have other problems going on in their head in order to be affected to commit violence. So as the video game industry matures, alarmist views like yours who can't see that video games are just another entertainment medium, will fall by the wayside, I believe.
And as for your free speech argument - as soon as you start deciding what types of speech can and cannot be free, you're no longer allowing free speech. Let people write all the snuff fantasies they want. Let the Ku Klux Klan organize and gather all they want. Let them all have their voice. As soon as you start saying, you aren't allowed to say such things - people begin getting interested in it. For instance, the Ku Klux Klan is shown on shows like Jerry Springer and is seen as a laughingstock. If the government supressed them then people would wonder about what their message was and an underground movement would begin. I think part of the reason that Germany still has to deal with people spouting Nazi views is that they are trying so hard to prevent anyone from saying anything along those lines. No, US-style free speech is not "a little fucked up", it is the only way free speech is of any value whatsoever. You don't get to pick and choose what people are allowed to say if speech is free.
That doesn't logically follow from the rest of what you've written. You say that the parents are ignorant and that kids should not play Manhunt. I agree, parents are not doing their job. So what you propose is for the government to step in and do the jobs of parents but also prevent anyone who long ago moved out of their parents' house from getting the game as well? Pardon me but if some parents are doing a poor job, you don't allow the government to become the parent of everyone. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes, there are differences between the driving gameplay of GTA and Manhunt. There's a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You might think government censorship is a good way to protect everyone but that's just a way for the government to ensure that it is the only voice - Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia spring to mind as two countries which used government intervention to ensure that only the voice of the government could be heard by the people. [Yes, it is a video game. Yes, it is not really a political message. Yes, it is a first step towards further censorship. You give an inch, the government takes it today. They'll be back tomorrow for another inch. At what point will you stand up?]
You seem a little young so if any of this went over your head, just reply with what confused you and I'll try to clear it up.
But since you haven't played the game, that argument doesn't hold any water. You don't know how one interacts and at what level the interaction is. Before you go deciding that no one should be playing violent games, maybe you should do a little research and find out if there's ever been a link established between violent games and deviant behavior.
Sure, if Manhunt isn't your cup of tea, don't buy it. But rather than trying to judge whether anyone should be playing it or whether it should have been made, why not just let the free market determine the best route? [Since you're not going to prove a link between violent games and violent behavior in people who weren't already prone to such behavior.] If no one buys games that, in your opinion, shouldn't have been made, games like this won't be made.
I live in the United States where freedom of speech is a right - this includes violent video games.
You may be completely correct. The only possible explanation of why this is more interesting than those fish (and I may be off in left field with this - so correct me if I am) aren't mammals. A squirrel is interesting because it is a mammal. Obviously the hibernation situation is the big step but I guess I see this as proof of concept that an animal similar to humans, moreso than fish anyway, can survive below freezing. Thanks for your comment nonetheless.
The type of situation you describe is something that would obviously be covered by a warning on any possible product this technology leads to. So they can sue all they want and when it's quickly thrown out because there was a clear and explicit warning on the package, they can pay the defense bills of the company who released the game. And just remember, I could be a lawyer! This is Slashdot, you never know.
People are still selling/making pogs? Jesus Christ!
You're familiar with how the Japanese and American versions differ and you don't call yourself a fan?
Second of all, why would I only be able to view photographs taken with a digital camera? Wouldn't any photograph that's been encoded in a digital format be viewable, given the correct software? For instance, 35 mm film can be processed and then digitized through the use of what we in the know call "scanners" - would you like to know more?
I posted a bit prematurely BUT I think people should write to Rockstar and let them know that caving to special interest groups does not make the people who buy their games happy. I want the developers of GTA4 to have full reign and know that the company will back them up with whatever they produce. I don't want self-censorship to be going on.
My signature is separate from my comment. I said nothing about liberals being PC. I will expect an apology.
Fun but the replay value is limited by people seeing the trick. Better to just wait till everyone has been enjoying the liquor for a bit and then bust out the fire hose. Extra points if you bust in on people in the copy room bumping uglies and spray them like dogs on a lawn.
You're right - no one should be surprised about the uproar over it. Of course, the uproar is a bit late since the game has been out for so long now but we'll just ignore that fact. Doing anything that isn't P.C. is a good way to get people upset but Rockstar really should have stood up for itself. People do not have the right to not be offended. If there is a group of Haitians who find the game offensive (out of context of course), they are free not to buy the game and quit their whining.
Corporate Office
Address Phone
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. 622 Broadway, New York, NY 10012 (646) 536-2842
International Headquarters
Address Phone
Take Two UK Saxon House 4 Victoria Street, Windsor, Bershire SL4 1EN 01753 496 600
Primary Subsidiaries
Address
Rockstar Games, Inc. 575 Broadway, New York, NY 10012
Gotham Games, Inc. 622 Broadway, New York, NY 10012
Gathering of Developers 9900 Franklin Square Drive, Suite A Baltimore, MD 21236
Sales Department - (646) 536-2842
Public Relations
James Ankner - Take-Two (Investors & Media Relations) - (646) 536-3006
Jeff Castaneda - Rockstar Games - (212) 334-6633 x217
Anne Marie Sims - Gathering - (410) 933-9191 x108
Rockstar was getting pressure from mainstream groups who took the game out of context - are these the people who are driving sales of their game? No, it is the devoted gamer and they're bowing to pressure from the group that doesn't create their profits. It's time that Rockstar and Take Two remembered who butters their bread. All this will do is remove the heat from the censorship groups and replace it with heat from gamers offended by Rockstar's lack of a spine - and gamers getting angry hurts their bottom line.
Big mistake, I think. I will not buy another Rockstar product unless they reverse their position.
It's a shame Rob Malda is so damn uninterested in answering questions posted by readers of Slashdot - otherwise I might be able to find out what the deal is and actually subscribe. Of course, the editors seem to look at the readers are a nuisance who they owe nothing to.
And I'm not a troll, AC! :P
maybe i'm just releasing some steam over online play not being included? because i've got a friend from college who keeps e-mailing me and talking up his mario kart game when i know that i could easily send him packing with his tail between his legs but we probably won't hang out till new years eve and i'll, in all likelihood, be hammered. now if he ponys up and gets hammered too then i'll win BUT...if he decides to play strategically and plays against me sober, he's got a shot. so basically, i want to give out an ass-kicking remotely now so it can be done and the mouthy e-mails can stop.
As for the rest of your comment regarding AC posts, I didn't say it was a bad thing I was merely pointing out that it was not a well-represented fact that AC posts were tied to user accounts. I want to know exactly how my data is treated in regards to my account before I just give it out.
Finally, yes - I do quite a bit of research before I trust an online retailer.
And why bother spending the time? To give the end users the best possible experience they could have. Nintendo's philosophy has always been about giving the customer the best experience and the most fun - which I've respected - and I think online play would enhance that fun, that's why. Maybe they won't make a ton of money off it and it will cost them time and resources but they'd deliver a better product. It seems like Nintendo has always been the type of company where that mattered - maybe management has changed...
I'd rather hand it over to Slashdot than use Paypal!
I think this is a fairly important question and would like to see an editor answer it. If user names are then tied to name and address by subscribing, count me out.