Everything that you said was true, so don't think that I'm trying to argue with you on the points that you made. The video game industry is far behind as an artform in comparison to those industries. GTA: Vice City doesn't come close to what most R rated movies in terms of subject matter. The fact that companies like Rockstar and Take Two caved in over a statement that the Haitians took out of context gives the impression that games aren't much more than toys and that game companies are relatively easy to push over. These were two companies that took pride in having edgier content. And look how long it took for the edit to take place.
In the movie world, look at what Quentin Tarantino or David Mamet can get away with. They get applauded for being great artists whereas currently a game couldn't even think of going as far as they do without having to be released independently and never making it into a store. Movies and music are edited as well, but they are not held down to the level games are at now.
Still, I think that all of the industries need to change.
I'm not sure. They might have tried to shoot Radio Waves of Doom (RWoDs for those in the know) at E.T. and the boy when they were flying in the bicycle.
I never said this was a First Amendment issue, and I made it a point to mention that they self-censored. But, I'm not implying that you accused me of saying that it was. I just don't want anybody confused. Anyways, this would be a First Amendment issue if Mayor Bloomberg went through with an investigation.
I'm not sure if the move was very smart, considering how much of this game's popularity came from controversy. This was indeed self-censorship. They pulled out the content despite feeling that the offended people misunderstood it. That's what I'm upset about the most, they made it seem like a video game was nothing more than a product when a video game truly is an artform.
It's the same type of situation where they had the guns replaced with walkie talkies in E.T. when it was rereleased due to political correctness. Sure, it might have brought some more people to watch the movie, but it hurt the artistic integrity of the film and the filmmakers. It might have even costed them customers because of the move.
In both cases, it was their work, and therefore they had every right to do what they wanted to with it. I just don't believe that either parties made the right decision.
I knew that it would be pointed out, I just knew it. I figured that I'd leave it alone, considering that I did use it correctly elsewhere in the post and that I didn't really feel like writing yet another disclaimer.
Damn, that's two typos today, I made one before I took a nap, and another right after.
Let's not lump every corporation into being in it solely for sales and profit. Of course, sales and profit are considerations because the people running the company would like to stay in business and live comfortably. However, many companies make their money because they don't censor themselves and stay true to their artform. Governments and individuals also have good and bad motives. I challenge you or any other individual or group to make a game like GTA: Vice City without keeping sales and profit in mind.
There's no need for a bleeding heart statement like the one that you made. There are companies out there that do what they do because they like it, not just for money.
As for what you believe their rationale is, that could very well be the case. Yet, the Haitian population is fairly small in comparison to other groups. There could be a substantial amount of people who would sympathize if this issue gets enough attention. My guess is that their decision factored in loss of sales with bad publicity and the possibility of Mayor Bloomberg launching an investigation.
They still shouldn't have censored the content, though.
The Voodoo Extreme article stated that Mayor Bloomberg said Rockstar and Take Two would be investigated for human rights violations. The New York Post article stated that Bloomberg said they would be investigated if Take Two didn't comply in removing the phrase.
Either way, what human right is being violated, other than the right to free speech?
I don't believe that they should sensor themselves just because certain people become offended. But, if Rockstar and Take Two truly believed that it is their right to keep a sense of realism in their game, then they shouldn't have removed the content at all. They're already getting enough bad press from the game, which has helped its popularity anyways.
Most importantly, because Rockstar and Take Two are censoring themselves in this manner, they have severely hurt the argument that video games are an artform. It's going to be much harder to have video games gain the same amount of artistic respect that movies and music have to the general public. Special interest groups will have a much easier time getting other companies to follow suit and self-censor as well, because now they can say "Rockstar and Take Two did it, why won't you?"
Many people might have made garage hardware, but compare that to the number who have written software.
Non-mandatory certification is one thing, but it seemed as if this guy was implying a mandatory standard. That's definitely a no-go. Even with non-mandatory, I would be a bit concerned that certain stores might not consider selling software without the certification. Also, I'm not sure how nominal the fee would be if the certification took off due to the large amounts of software that they would have to test, or if the certification body gets swayed politically one way or another.
Not to mention, there's also that risk of software getting leaked before its release date.
Finally, if all this body was doing was making sure that the software follows some basic operating rules, wouldn't most software fall under compliance anyways? Why would they need to make sure the software is compliant if the software would need to follow those rules in the first place just to work, let alone sell?
The reason why we shouldn't have software approvals is simple, it would discourage people to start making software in the first place. Why should they even bother learning if they will have to go through tons of red tape?
Ok, I'm not going to argue with him, but I'm not a right winger. I'm a libertarian. And I'd surely love to know how much more you think that you know, but you're posting as a coward. So it doesn't matter, I guess.
I don't really support going after bin Laden mind you, to me it's like a wild goose chase, I'm stating what I would believe to be the best course of action if you wanted to.
It must be fun getting to play the snide anti-American who thinks that they have some sort of enlightenment on the issue that nobody else does. Yet again, you're still posting as a coward...
I'm going to do us both a favor and stop posting to this thread. You have your opinions, I have mine. Any more of this quote->argue->repeat business and I won't be able to get anything done, like playing video games.
I haven't even played many of those games, but that doesn't mean that I can't suggest them. I've been playing games for close to 15 years and, in combination with reviews and comments from people that I play games with, would say that those titles are good titles for their genre. Take for example DDR. I would never go near that game, but, there are many people who love it. So, I put it on my list because you might just think that somebody you are getting gifts for would like it.
And did I say that you needed more than one football or hockey game? No, but I put them in the list because each one of those games would be a good game in that genre. I won't tell somebody "don't get Madden, stick with ESPN NFL Football," because both have their pros and cons. People might want to weigh both options in consideration of the person they are buying for. No, I haven't played each sports game even, but I have at least played one of the games for most licenses.
But, here's the kicker. If you thought that I was trying to make a definitive Christmas 2003 list to put the other lists to shame, you're wrong. I was simply showing prockcore that there were more than 25 good titles for the XBox this year alone, which I was able to find in just one quick scan of an XBox games list.
My point is that my stating that the two were unrelated was justified.
No, I did not use a straw man fallacy. I used a proof by example. You stated that "A country's laws should not reach into another country." I showed you an example of when a country's laws should reach into another country, thereby disproving your statement.
It was a straw man fallacy because you were implying that I didn't think we should go after bin Laden. It would be like me saying that I didn't think that a country should force their laws on another and thus shouldn't be able to enforce our spam laws over there, and then having you ask whether or not we should enforce our murder laws if they support the mass slaughter of babies. Also, you didn't disprove my statement, you just stated your opinion.
So we declare war on Osama bin Laden (declare war on a person!?!?!?) and then wait for another terrorist attack to happen? No thanks. We need to kill or capture bin Laden before another terrorist attack happens.
No, we declare war on al Quaeda, although with George W. Bush's thinking it wouldn't be that stupid to declare war on a person considering that we're declaring war on a practice. And I'm not saying that we wait for another terrorist attack. We knew going in that there would be casualties, so, you take bin Laden as a war criminal, find some rule that he violated, and take care of him that way.
Right, and to amend the amendment procedures would require that you first use the amendment procedures.
Exactly, but you would only have to do it once. Thereafter, it would be a breeze to make amendments.
How? And who is they?
The answer to the is the UN, the group that I said I was switching the topic to. As far as the how question goes, they would just follow the old procedures, which would only slow the process.
The world may indeed have given them too much control, but that's irrelevant. Just because they have too much control doesn't mean that they should have no control whatsoever.
It's not irrelevant in any way. Since they have too much control, it's very easy for them to take the limited power, that they would grant to themselves by the way, and make it less limited. Because they have the power to do that, they should have no control at all.
Maybe.
And you're willing to go with just a maybe when it comes to the internet? Maybe they'll censor, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll charge violators of their rules, maybe they won't. Anyways, we couldn't just ignore them because we would be giving them permission to handle how the internet works. They would be the ones calling the shots.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. A governing body for the Internet should be formed by the UN. I'm not saying the UN itself should govern the Internet. That governing body would have whatever powers we choose to give it. I'd argue for very limited powers. At most, they can take away your IP addresses.
I understand what you're saying, but that governing body that the UN would be creating would still be the UN's. They would only have as much power as the UN gave them, not as much power as we give them.
First, when I said unrelated, I meant in the sense that internet regulation isn't related to capturing Osama bin Laden. I didn't mean a country's laws not reaching into another's is related to internet regulation but not capturing Osama bin Laden. Anyways, it seems that you were trying to use the straw man fallacy on me, which seems to be a tactic growing in popularity on Slashdot.
It wasn't a war crime. The crime would have been committed before the declaration of war anyway.
Exactly. You don't nail him for the 9/11 attacks, you nail him for anything that he pulls from the war declaration forward.
Let's switch to the UN topic.
Only if they followed the procedures for amending their powers.
All they would have to do is amend those procedures to make things easier. Even if they didn't, they still could get those powers that they want. Sure that's how a nation does things, but this is a governing body that has the ability to override a country's laws with their own. All that they need to do is grant themselves that power. What I'm trying to say is that the world has given them too much control.
The same people who give them the power in the first place. Are you saying what if the people who were elected start going nuts and ignoring the rules they set up? We'd just ignore them. Again, I'm not suggesting we give the UN the power to arrest people and such. Their powers would be more like those of the federal court system in United States. They make their rulings, and people follow them because they make sense.
Could we just ignore them? As far as the internet goes, if they controlled how the internet worked, we couldn't just ignore them. ICANN is a US corporation, sure, but the UN could get away with much more shit than ICANN ever could. The UN can impose real consequences for disobeying their rulings, whereas ICANN can't do much at all. Also, people don't follow their rulings just because they make sense. Many people follow the UN's rulings because they have to. They are afraid of what would happen if they didn't.
So the United States shouldn't be able to charge Osama bin Laden with murder?
It's funny how people bring up completely unrelated issues that would seem unarguable when trying to corner somebody. But, I'll argue. For one, I don't know what evidence the United States has against him other than what's made available to the public, and how much of that is true is questionable (as with any political statement about anything). Also, I doubt that he himself murdered. It seems that he had other people murder for him. So, he could be considered an accessory before the fact. Whether or not that would be seen as the same thing under the eye of the law (in this case, probably either US federal court or a UN tribunal like the one used against Yugoslavian suspects), I don't know. There's no uniform way to handle things like 9/11. It probably would have helped if there was an official war declaration passed by Congress, since there are regulations as far as war crime proceedings go. That would have at least provided a template of action.
Regardless, it should not come down to one single governing body handling that because bestowing that much power to one group is dangerous. They could take that power and stretch it. Yet, there's a good change that they will kill him if and when they find him, so the whole debate might not matter anyways.
You're thinking of a specific implementation. As I said, the powers would have to be extremely limited and enumerated.
But, the UN could make their powers greater. Since they already gave themselves extremely limited and enumerated power, who would stop them from gaining more power?
That's not working, and it never will. The internet is international, and one country's laws are rarely able to reach into another country.
A country's laws should not reach into another country. That take away what exactly makes a country a country, having your own legal system.
I don't want anyone controlling what goes down on the internet. Unfortunately, that's impossible. Someone's gotta allocate the IP addresses, after all. If there's gonna be a governing body controlling what goes down on the internet (currently ICANN), it should be a world governing body, not a US corporation.
The problem with a world governing body is that their power limits reach much further than ICANN's ever could. After all, it is government.
I know, this is pretty unheard of to most politician types, but why don't they just leave the internet alone? They could just allow each country's existing laws to take care of things that might be illegal rather than create new ones that just muddy up the legal system.
I know, they would like to act as if they're doing something. But, I personally don't want some world governing body controlling what goes down on the internet. If that doesn't scare you I don't know what does. Can't governments of any type just keep their hands off?
I think that perhaps game companies should worry more about producing worthwhile games than suing competing game companies for creating games that are in some ways similar, but share no source code.
In this particular situation, Sega was the company creating the worthwhile game. Crazy Taxi was quite innovative, so let's give credit where credit is due. And The Simpsons Road Rage was extremely similar to Crazy Taxi, not just similar in some ways.
But when it comes to this kind of stuff we should all bow to the almighty dollar rather than customer satisfaction.
Now, was it really necessary to make a bleeding heart anti-capitalist statement like that? And what the hell does this situation have to do with customer satisfaction? This has to do with patent infringement.
Look, I don't agree with Sega about the lawsuit, mostly due to the higher probability of losing it, but this is an option available to them. Rather than looking like they're doing nothing about having their ideas ripped off, they took action. One of the companies in the suit, EA, is their largest competitor. They probably thought that it was better than sitting around twiddling their thumbs while their investors are watching.
Beyond Good and Evil Burnout 2: Point of Impact Capcom vs. SNK 2 EO Colin McRae Rally 3 Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix Deathrow Deus Ex: Invisible War ESPN College Hoops ESPN NBA Basketball ESPN NFL Football ESPN NHL Hockey FIFA Soccer 2004 Freedom Fighters Gladius Goblin Commander: Unleash the Horde Grand Theft Auto Double Pack Madden NFL 2004 Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne Metal Arms: Glitch in the System Midnight Club Midtown Madness 3 Morrowind Game of the Year Edition NASCAR Thunder 2004 NBA Street Vol 2 NCAA Football 2004 NCAA March Madness 2004 Need for Speed Underground NHL 2004 NHL Hitz Pro Otogi: Myth of Demon Panzer Dragoon Orta Phantasy Star Online Prince of Persia: Sands of Time Project Gotham Racing 2 Return to Castle Wolfenstein Soul Calibur II SSX 3 Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Island Thunder Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3 Tony Hawk's Underground Top Spin XIII
There you have it, 45 count. All of which were released this year. Their article had to borrow from last year's games. Also, I just scrolled down the GameTab list of XBox games, which doesn't include each and every game. Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily play every game (like DDR) that I listed, but, there is something for everybody and each game is good within their genre.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything that you said was true, so don't think that I'm trying to argue with you on the points that you made. The video game industry is far behind as an artform in comparison to those industries. GTA: Vice City doesn't come close to what most R rated movies in terms of subject matter. The fact that companies like Rockstar and Take Two caved in over a statement that the Haitians took out of context gives the impression that games aren't much more than toys and that game companies are relatively easy to push over. These were two companies that took pride in having edgier content. And look how long it took for the edit to take place.
In the movie world, look at what Quentin Tarantino or David Mamet can get away with. They get applauded for being great artists whereas currently a game couldn't even think of going as far as they do without having to be released independently and never making it into a store. Movies and music are edited as well, but they are not held down to the level games are at now.
Still, I think that all of the industries need to change.
I'm not sure. They might have tried to shoot Radio Waves of Doom (RWoDs for those in the know) at E.T. and the boy when they were flying in the bicycle.
I never said this was a First Amendment issue, and I made it a point to mention that they self-censored. But, I'm not implying that you accused me of saying that it was. I just don't want anybody confused. Anyways, this would be a First Amendment issue if Mayor Bloomberg went through with an investigation.
I'm not sure if the move was very smart, considering how much of this game's popularity came from controversy. This was indeed self-censorship. They pulled out the content despite feeling that the offended people misunderstood it. That's what I'm upset about the most, they made it seem like a video game was nothing more than a product when a video game truly is an artform.
It's the same type of situation where they had the guns replaced with walkie talkies in E.T. when it was rereleased due to political correctness. Sure, it might have brought some more people to watch the movie, but it hurt the artistic integrity of the film and the filmmakers. It might have even costed them customers because of the move.
In both cases, it was their work, and therefore they had every right to do what they wanted to with it. I just don't believe that either parties made the right decision.
I knew that it would be pointed out, I just knew it. I figured that I'd leave it alone, considering that I did use it correctly elsewhere in the post and that I didn't really feel like writing yet another disclaimer.
Damn, that's two typos today, I made one before I took a nap, and another right after.
Let's not lump every corporation into being in it solely for sales and profit. Of course, sales and profit are considerations because the people running the company would like to stay in business and live comfortably. However, many companies make their money because they don't censor themselves and stay true to their artform. Governments and individuals also have good and bad motives. I challenge you or any other individual or group to make a game like GTA: Vice City without keeping sales and profit in mind.
There's no need for a bleeding heart statement like the one that you made. There are companies out there that do what they do because they like it, not just for money.
As for what you believe their rationale is, that could very well be the case. Yet, the Haitian population is fairly small in comparison to other groups. There could be a substantial amount of people who would sympathize if this issue gets enough attention. My guess is that their decision factored in loss of sales with bad publicity and the possibility of Mayor Bloomberg launching an investigation.
They still shouldn't have censored the content, though.
The Voodoo Extreme article stated that Mayor Bloomberg said Rockstar and Take Two would be investigated for human rights violations. The New York Post article stated that Bloomberg said they would be investigated if Take Two didn't comply in removing the phrase.
Either way, what human right is being violated, other than the right to free speech?
I don't believe that they should sensor themselves just because certain people become offended. But, if Rockstar and Take Two truly believed that it is their right to keep a sense of realism in their game, then they shouldn't have removed the content at all. They're already getting enough bad press from the game, which has helped its popularity anyways.
Most importantly, because Rockstar and Take Two are censoring themselves in this manner, they have severely hurt the argument that video games are an artform. It's going to be much harder to have video games gain the same amount of artistic respect that movies and music have to the general public. Special interest groups will have a much easier time getting other companies to follow suit and self-censor as well, because now they can say "Rockstar and Take Two did it, why won't you?"
Many people might have made garage hardware, but compare that to the number who have written software.
Non-mandatory certification is one thing, but it seemed as if this guy was implying a mandatory standard. That's definitely a no-go. Even with non-mandatory, I would be a bit concerned that certain stores might not consider selling software without the certification. Also, I'm not sure how nominal the fee would be if the certification took off due to the large amounts of software that they would have to test, or if the certification body gets swayed politically one way or another.
Not to mention, there's also that risk of software getting leaked before its release date.
Finally, if all this body was doing was making sure that the software follows some basic operating rules, wouldn't most software fall under compliance anyways? Why would they need to make sure the software is compliant if the software would need to follow those rules in the first place just to work, let alone sell?
Bah, fuck me. Change that to hardware publishing. It's getting dark at 5 pm now. Getting tired.
No. Software publishing is much tougher to get into, whereas anybody with a computer can start writing software.
The reason why we shouldn't have software approvals is simple, it would discourage people to start making software in the first place. Why should they even bother learning if they will have to go through tons of red tape?
Ok, I'm not going to argue with him, but I'm not a right winger. I'm a libertarian. And I'd surely love to know how much more you think that you know, but you're posting as a coward. So it doesn't matter, I guess.
I don't really support going after bin Laden mind you, to me it's like a wild goose chase, I'm stating what I would believe to be the best course of action if you wanted to.
It must be fun getting to play the snide anti-American who thinks that they have some sort of enlightenment on the issue that nobody else does. Yet again, you're still posting as a coward...
You know what I say to all of that?
Nothing.
I'm going to do us both a favor and stop posting to this thread. You have your opinions, I have mine. Any more of this quote->argue->repeat business and I won't be able to get anything done, like playing video games.
I haven't even played many of those games, but that doesn't mean that I can't suggest them. I've been playing games for close to 15 years and, in combination with reviews and comments from people that I play games with, would say that those titles are good titles for their genre. Take for example DDR. I would never go near that game, but, there are many people who love it. So, I put it on my list because you might just think that somebody you are getting gifts for would like it.
And did I say that you needed more than one football or hockey game? No, but I put them in the list because each one of those games would be a good game in that genre. I won't tell somebody "don't get Madden, stick with ESPN NFL Football," because both have their pros and cons. People might want to weigh both options in consideration of the person they are buying for. No, I haven't played each sports game even, but I have at least played one of the games for most licenses.
But, here's the kicker. If you thought that I was trying to make a definitive Christmas 2003 list to put the other lists to shame, you're wrong. I was simply showing prockcore that there were more than 25 good titles for the XBox this year alone, which I was able to find in just one quick scan of an XBox games list.
OK, so what's your point?
My point is that my stating that the two were unrelated was justified.
No, I did not use a straw man fallacy. I used a proof by example. You stated that "A country's laws should not reach into another country." I showed you an example of when a country's laws should reach into another country, thereby disproving your statement.
It was a straw man fallacy because you were implying that I didn't think we should go after bin Laden. It would be like me saying that I didn't think that a country should force their laws on another and thus shouldn't be able to enforce our spam laws over there, and then having you ask whether or not we should enforce our murder laws if they support the mass slaughter of babies. Also, you didn't disprove my statement, you just stated your opinion.
So we declare war on Osama bin Laden (declare war on a person!?!?!?) and then wait for another terrorist attack to happen? No thanks. We need to kill or capture bin Laden before another terrorist attack happens.
No, we declare war on al Quaeda, although with George W. Bush's thinking it wouldn't be that stupid to declare war on a person considering that we're declaring war on a practice. And I'm not saying that we wait for another terrorist attack. We knew going in that there would be casualties, so, you take bin Laden as a war criminal, find some rule that he violated, and take care of him that way.
Right, and to amend the amendment procedures would require that you first use the amendment procedures.
Exactly, but you would only have to do it once. Thereafter, it would be a breeze to make amendments.
How? And who is they?
The answer to the is the UN, the group that I said I was switching the topic to. As far as the how question goes, they would just follow the old procedures, which would only slow the process.
The world may indeed have given them too much control, but that's irrelevant. Just because they have too much control doesn't mean that they should have no control whatsoever.
It's not irrelevant in any way. Since they have too much control, it's very easy for them to take the limited power, that they would grant to themselves by the way, and make it less limited. Because they have the power to do that, they should have no control at all.
Maybe.
And you're willing to go with just a maybe when it comes to the internet? Maybe they'll censor, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll charge violators of their rules, maybe they won't. Anyways, we couldn't just ignore them because we would be giving them permission to handle how the internet works. They would be the ones calling the shots.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. A governing body for the Internet should be formed by the UN. I'm not saying the UN itself should govern the Internet. That governing body would have whatever powers we choose to give it. I'd argue for very limited powers. At most, they can take away your IP addresses.
I understand what you're saying, but that governing body that the UN would be creating would still be the UN's. They would only have as much power as the UN gave them, not as much power as we give them.
First, when I said unrelated, I meant in the sense that internet regulation isn't related to capturing Osama bin Laden. I didn't mean a country's laws not reaching into another's is related to internet regulation but not capturing Osama bin Laden. Anyways, it seems that you were trying to use the straw man fallacy on me, which seems to be a tactic growing in popularity on Slashdot.
It wasn't a war crime. The crime would have been committed before the declaration of war anyway.
Exactly. You don't nail him for the 9/11 attacks, you nail him for anything that he pulls from the war declaration forward.
Let's switch to the UN topic.
Only if they followed the procedures for amending their powers.
All they would have to do is amend those procedures to make things easier. Even if they didn't, they still could get those powers that they want. Sure that's how a nation does things, but this is a governing body that has the ability to override a country's laws with their own. All that they need to do is grant themselves that power. What I'm trying to say is that the world has given them too much control.
The same people who give them the power in the first place. Are you saying what if the people who were elected start going nuts and ignoring the rules they set up? We'd just ignore them. Again, I'm not suggesting we give the UN the power to arrest people and such. Their powers would be more like those of the federal court system in United States. They make their rulings, and people follow them because they make sense.
Could we just ignore them? As far as the internet goes, if they controlled how the internet worked, we couldn't just ignore them. ICANN is a US corporation, sure, but the UN could get away with much more shit than ICANN ever could. The UN can impose real consequences for disobeying their rulings, whereas ICANN can't do much at all. Also, people don't follow their rulings just because they make sense. Many people follow the UN's rulings because they have to. They are afraid of what would happen if they didn't.
Well, hey, the troops in my storycan be pissed about that too.
So the United States shouldn't be able to charge Osama bin Laden with murder?
It's funny how people bring up completely unrelated issues that would seem unarguable when trying to corner somebody. But, I'll argue. For one, I don't know what evidence the United States has against him other than what's made available to the public, and how much of that is true is questionable (as with any political statement about anything). Also, I doubt that he himself murdered. It seems that he had other people murder for him. So, he could be considered an accessory before the fact. Whether or not that would be seen as the same thing under the eye of the law (in this case, probably either US federal court or a UN tribunal like the one used against Yugoslavian suspects), I don't know. There's no uniform way to handle things like 9/11. It probably would have helped if there was an official war declaration passed by Congress, since there are regulations as far as war crime proceedings go. That would have at least provided a template of action.
Regardless, it should not come down to one single governing body handling that because bestowing that much power to one group is dangerous. They could take that power and stretch it. Yet, there's a good change that they will kill him if and when they find him, so the whole debate might not matter anyways.
You're thinking of a specific implementation. As I said, the powers would have to be extremely limited and enumerated.
But, the UN could make their powers greater. Since they already gave themselves extremely limited and enumerated power, who would stop them from gaining more power?
Microsoft Rep: Hey guys! We've got you some games and XBox Live accounts!
Troops: (Cheering)
Troop #1: So, buddy, what games do you have for us?
Microsoft Rep: How about some Conflict: Desert Storm II - Back to Baghdad.
Troop #1: Uh...
Troop #2: Anything else?
Microsoft Rep: Ghost Recon?
Troops: (Silence)
Microsoft Rep: Ghost Recon... Island Thunder? Rainbow Six 3? Counter Strike?
Troop #3: How about ESPN NFL Football?
Troop #4: Or Midnight Club II?
Troop #5: Or Dance Dance Revolution ULTRAMIX? Come on!
Troops: (Raise eyebrow at Troop #5)
Troop #1: Hey, what kind of fucking joke is this?
Microsoft Rep: Oh shit...
That's not working, and it never will. The internet is international, and one country's laws are rarely able to reach into another country.
A country's laws should not reach into another country. That take away what exactly makes a country a country, having your own legal system.
I don't want anyone controlling what goes down on the internet. Unfortunately, that's impossible. Someone's gotta allocate the IP addresses, after all. If there's gonna be a governing body controlling what goes down on the internet (currently ICANN), it should be a world governing body, not a US corporation.
The problem with a world governing body is that their power limits reach much further than ICANN's ever could. After all, it is government.
I don't quite get your argument that this is some sort of frontier. Things seem to be quite orderly as it is now.
I know, this is pretty unheard of to most politician types, but why don't they just leave the internet alone? They could just allow each country's existing laws to take care of things that might be illegal rather than create new ones that just muddy up the legal system.
I know, they would like to act as if they're doing something. But, I personally don't want some world governing body controlling what goes down on the internet. If that doesn't scare you I don't know what does. Can't governments of any type just keep their hands off?
I think that perhaps game companies should worry more about producing worthwhile games than suing competing game companies for creating games that are in some ways similar, but share no source code.
In this particular situation, Sega was the company creating the worthwhile game. Crazy Taxi was quite innovative, so let's give credit where credit is due. And The Simpsons Road Rage was extremely similar to Crazy Taxi, not just similar in some ways.
But when it comes to this kind of stuff we should all bow to the almighty dollar rather than customer satisfaction.
Now, was it really necessary to make a bleeding heart anti-capitalist statement like that? And what the hell does this situation have to do with customer satisfaction? This has to do with patent infringement.
Look, I don't agree with Sega about the lawsuit, mostly due to the higher probability of losing it, but this is an option available to them. Rather than looking like they're doing nothing about having their ideas ripped off, they took action. One of the companies in the suit, EA, is their largest competitor. They probably thought that it was better than sitting around twiddling their thumbs while their investors are watching.
I'll make an XBox list.
Beyond Good and Evil
Burnout 2: Point of Impact
Capcom vs. SNK 2 EO
Colin McRae Rally 3
Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge
Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix
Deathrow
Deus Ex: Invisible War
ESPN College Hoops
ESPN NBA Basketball
ESPN NFL Football
ESPN NHL Hockey
FIFA Soccer 2004
Freedom Fighters
Gladius
Goblin Commander: Unleash the Horde
Grand Theft Auto Double Pack
Madden NFL 2004
Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne
Metal Arms: Glitch in the System
Midnight Club
Midtown Madness 3
Morrowind Game of the Year Edition
NASCAR Thunder 2004
NBA Street Vol 2
NCAA Football 2004
NCAA March Madness 2004
Need for Speed Underground
NHL 2004
NHL Hitz Pro
Otogi: Myth of Demon
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Phantasy Star Online
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
Project Gotham Racing 2
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Soul Calibur II
SSX 3
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Island Thunder
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk's Underground
Top Spin
XIII
There you have it, 45 count. All of which were released this year. Their article had to borrow from last year's games. Also, I just scrolled down the GameTab list of XBox games, which doesn't include each and every game. Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily play every game (like DDR) that I listed, but, there is something for everybody and each game is good within their genre.
Ok, the site has already felt the effect, but I noticed that Dino Crisis 3 and Enter the Matrix were on the XBox list.
Well, their credability went down the toilet for me, and this is the first time I've heard of these people. That might be a record!