As someone who just turned 17 a couple years ago, it's just as easy to sneak into an R rated movie and/or buy an R rated DVD as it was to buy an M rated video game.
And as for NC-17, most of those movies are considered "obscene material" by the government, so there is tecnically a law forbidding minors from buying them.
But why are violent video games so much worse than movies that they need a law banning them. In my mind, i have no problem with age restrictions on items... Sure, i don't want an 8 year old to be able to buy porn, and I honestly can't think of anyone who would want that. However, I don't like the fact that video games are being treated much worse than movies simply because video games don't have as big as a lobbing campagin as movie producers.
I can gaurentee that anything you find in a video game, i can find something worse in an R rated movie, and yet nobody is making a huge fuss how we need a law banning minors from seeing R rated movies. Video games are being used as a scapegoat and are the hot issue now, and are being unfairly restricted.
I'm not saying that there is even the same chance of having a great title, i just want more great titles. I would much rather have a system with 100 games and a 5% chance of there being a great game, than a system with 10 games and a 10% chance of being a great game. Sure the system with 100 games will have more crap, but there also will be more great titles for me to play.
I'm not sure why anyone can think that there's such a thing as too many titles for a system. The way I look at, more titles means more chance that one of those titles is going to be something that you really like, and if the other 9 out of 10 are complete crap, don't buy them. Simple as that.
The fact is, since the NES, i have always been a once console person. Up until this generation with the GCN, I have been perfectly content with only having an nes, snes, n64, etc. and just missing all the Sony, Sega, and Microsoft exclusives, because i could always have a good library of fun interesting games for my system.
However I have to say that I finally cracked and bought a PS2. Don't get me wrong, there are some great GCN games out there that i absolutely love, it just really seems that for every great GCN game coming out, there are at least 5 coming out for the PS2, and when I hadn't had a decent game to play in a while, and guitar hero came out, it finally just pushed me over the edge.
As for the article, this isn't a new thing... nintendo promised more third party support on the GCN, and while it definitly seemed to have more than the N64, as i said earlier, compared to the PS2 it's lacking. Honestly, the only way i can think of to really get more third party support is to pick up a much bigger share of the console race, and the way nintendo operates (catering to niche markets, being happy with non-HD, etc.) It just doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon.
When the site first started, they didn't have the url of facebook.com, so you actually did have to go to thefacebook.com. Hence, some of the users who were first on the bandwagon still add in the "the" when they say the name of the site.
I think what he's complaining about is that the fact that someone has put more time into something is what makes them a better character, and there are notable things in the real world that don't fit into this view on things.
Personally, i know that i have almost no artistic talent at all, and my attempts at art throughout high school usually prompted ridicule. According to the WoW (or more genreally, ORPG view) If i keep drawing crap for a long time, suddenly i'll be a better artist than someone who may have had no lessons or anything, but turns out to be the next monet.
If i'm awful at sports, yet i've played a lot, will that make me better than a natural athlete?
Sure, practice at a skill can make one better, but the amount of practice doesn't completely overwhelm natural ability, like the WoW model seems to say it does. That's what the author seems to have the most problems with. If I were to play someone in another game like starcraft, warcraft, street fighter, counter-strike, etc. Yes, it's probably the person who has practiced the most who is going to be better, and going to win. But the reason they win is because they are the better player, and both people go into the game on an equal footing, and it's not the practice itself that determines the winner, but the skill that develops as the result of the practice. Compare this to WoW, where if you have played longer, you have a "better" character.
Sure, for a lot of jobs, if you put enough time into something you can do it well, but only the people with natural gifts are going to become famous athletes, musicians, artists, etc. and the way WoW works is the oppposite of that, it's not the people with the most skill who become the best at what they do, it's people with the most time.
Meh, to me at least, something with fun gameplay, interesting story, and even some gore is a lot more fun to play than a Mario Party 8 with one or two new features...
I actually had a lot of fun with pilotwings... I dunno, i guess some of the later levels had enough challenge in them that it was fun just to play around.
Anyways, as for games that i want to see, I definitly agree with Sin and Punishment... I have heard so many great things about that game, and i'm pretty annoyed that i never got to play it. Jet Force Gemini also was fun, and does deserve to be on the list. Oh, and you're definitly right about uniracers, that game was awsome.
Well, according to wikipedia, the geneva convention says that the red cross (cresent, diamond, etc) logo is only supposed to be used to denote:
facilities for the care of injured and sick armed forces members
armed forces medical personnel and equipment
military chaplains
Red Cross groups such as the International Committee of the Red Cross; the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, formerly "the League of Red Cross Societies"; and the 182 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies.
However, I would say that the symbol's use in video games isn't any worse than it being used on first aid boxes in real life. According to those rules, that's not allowed either. Currently, the symbol has become pretty synonymous with help or injury relief. I think that forcing things like first aid boxes and the like not to use the symbol would cause more harm with illiterate people than help the red cross.
Re:Nintendo is in trouble with the Revolution
on
Nintendo's New Look
·
· Score: 1
Shigeru Miyamoto has said, "The majority of people won't be playing our system with an HDTV, though with the Revolution, 480p resolution will be standard."
They also made a big deal how the GCN would play games in 480p, and now advertise that games support progressive scan, yet they force you to buy a used GCN if you want to play in 480p, because the new models of GCN don't even have a digital out anymore...
If it does work though, Sony and Microsoft's "Red Ocean" will find themselves overfishing for a depleting market.
For some reason, i really can't see this happening. As long as there are going to be multiple platforms to release games on, there will be games like Madden, NCAA football, prince of persia (etc.) That have huge audiences, and developers will decide to release multi-console.
In my mind at least, multi-console releases hurt the revolution. In the current generation, all the consoles have reasonably similar hardware specs, and so while a game may look slightly better on the Xbox, playing the port of the game on PS2 doesn't change that much. However, with the revolution not supporting HD, and having noticibly worse hardware specs than Xbox 360 and PS3, multi-console games are going to look much better on the other consoles. I know if i had the choice of two identical games, one playng in HD with much better graphics, i'm going to pick that one every time.
What I see happening is if a devolper wants to be unique and fiddle with the new control system, they'll make a game for the revolution and see how it does, more mainstream games will just end up as PS3 and 360 titles.
Unfortunatly, there are many stores that have decided just to slap a blanket policy on all video games and movies: If it's rated NC-17 or AO, it's not appropriate, and we're not stocking it. This leads to the M rating being basically: "Everything that's appropriate to sell, that's more voilent/innapropriate/whatever than a T rated game." And just from looking at the ratings, there is no difference between something like Prince of Persia, which in my mind was a somwhat tame fighting game that wouldn't even have gotten an R rating if it were a movie, and games like Manhunt and GTA.
In my mind, that is the biggest problem, the disconnect between the MPAA, and ESRB: while i understand the argument that when people play a game they experiance it more than just passivly watching a movie, that shouldn't be the reason for such different standards between how movies are rated and how games are rated. R rated movies routinely have much worse content than M rated games, and yet everyone seems to focus on the games as the problem.
In my mind, this disconnect is a problem, and there should be some sort of common standard that applies to both ratings systems.
Well, when you consider that they can auction / sell off every one of those balls as "offical game ball used in super bowl XL," They're going to want to stretch as much money out of that as possible.
I want to say a regular (non playoff) game will use less than half that number of balls.
While the marriage "penalty" is one of the "benifits" that may not necessairily be a benefit to all couples, there are plenty of benifits that, in my mind at least, seem pretty important that only married couples can get.
The right not to testify against one another in court, Automatic Inheritance, Visitation rights if one of you gets arrested and sent to prison, being able to file for joint bankruptcy if you ever needed to... There are plenty of rights like that that are only given to married couples...
>> So the next Prince of Persia game will be released for all three next-gen platforms, right?
Unfortunately, I don't really see that many multi-console games getting to the revolution. Nintendo has taken the stance that they want their console to be "unique," and so they are opting out of stuff like HD support and the hardware capacity to handle the graphics of games that can run on Xbox 360 and PS3 in favor of a cheaper price point, and a very unique controller...
However, In my mind at least, this leads to a much larger gap between the various next-gen consoles... In the current generation of consoles, all the consoles have (reasonably) similar hardware specs, and ports can look reasonably similar. With the next-gen consoles, the revolution will (almost) always have a very noticable drop off in graphics from the PS3 and Xbox 360 version. I know if I had a rev and another console, i would always buy the PS3 or Xbox 360 version of whatever game came out... just because i want to be able to play it on my HDTV.
To me at least, i see devlopers making a lot of the mainstream games PS3 and Xbox 360 only, and when they want to experiment with a more unique game, that's when they'll develop for the revolution...
This isn't to say there won't be some great games on the revolution, i just don't see many multi-console ports coming.
Under Griswald v. Connecticut (1965) the supreme court ruled that the right to privacy was one of the un-enumerated rights that makes up part of the 9th amendment.
Roe v. Wade (1970) also cites the 9th amendment right to privacy.
However, since then, the 9th amendment has pretty much faded from use in Supreme Court cases. But if there is a Constitutional right to privacy, it falls under the 9th Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
And as for NC-17, most of those movies are considered "obscene material" by the government, so there is tecnically a law forbidding minors from buying them.
I can gaurentee that anything you find in a video game, i can find something worse in an R rated movie, and yet nobody is making a huge fuss how we need a law banning minors from seeing R rated movies. Video games are being used as a scapegoat and are the hot issue now, and are being unfairly restricted.
I'm not saying that there is even the same chance of having a great title, i just want more great titles. I would much rather have a system with 100 games and a 5% chance of there being a great game, than a system with 10 games and a 10% chance of being a great game. Sure the system with 100 games will have more crap, but there also will be more great titles for me to play.
The fact is, since the NES, i have always been a once console person. Up until this generation with the GCN, I have been perfectly content with only having an nes, snes, n64, etc. and just missing all the Sony, Sega, and Microsoft exclusives, because i could always have a good library of fun interesting games for my system.
However I have to say that I finally cracked and bought a PS2. Don't get me wrong, there are some great GCN games out there that i absolutely love, it just really seems that for every great GCN game coming out, there are at least 5 coming out for the PS2, and when I hadn't had a decent game to play in a while, and guitar hero came out, it finally just pushed me over the edge.
As for the article, this isn't a new thing... nintendo promised more third party support on the GCN, and while it definitly seemed to have more than the N64, as i said earlier, compared to the PS2 it's lacking. Honestly, the only way i can think of to really get more third party support is to pick up a much bigger share of the console race, and the way nintendo operates (catering to niche markets, being happy with non-HD, etc.) It just doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon.
When the site first started, they didn't have the url of facebook.com, so you actually did have to go to thefacebook.com. Hence, some of the users who were first on the bandwagon still add in the "the" when they say the name of the site.
Personally, i know that i have almost no artistic talent at all, and my attempts at art throughout high school usually prompted ridicule. According to the WoW (or more genreally, ORPG view) If i keep drawing crap for a long time, suddenly i'll be a better artist than someone who may have had no lessons or anything, but turns out to be the next monet.
If i'm awful at sports, yet i've played a lot, will that make me better than a natural athlete?
Sure, practice at a skill can make one better, but the amount of practice doesn't completely overwhelm natural ability, like the WoW model seems to say it does. That's what the author seems to have the most problems with. If I were to play someone in another game like starcraft, warcraft, street fighter, counter-strike, etc. Yes, it's probably the person who has practiced the most who is going to be better, and going to win. But the reason they win is because they are the better player, and both people go into the game on an equal footing, and it's not the practice itself that determines the winner, but the skill that develops as the result of the practice. Compare this to WoW, where if you have played longer, you have a "better" character.
Sure, for a lot of jobs, if you put enough time into something you can do it well, but only the people with natural gifts are going to become famous athletes, musicians, artists, etc. and the way WoW works is the oppposite of that, it's not the people with the most skill who become the best at what they do, it's people with the most time.
Meh, to me at least, something with fun gameplay, interesting story, and even some gore is a lot more fun to play than a Mario Party 8 with one or two new features...
Anyways, as for games that i want to see, I definitly agree with Sin and Punishment... I have heard so many great things about that game, and i'm pretty annoyed that i never got to play it. Jet Force Gemini also was fun, and does deserve to be on the list. Oh, and you're definitly right about uniracers, that game was awsome.
However, I would say that the symbol's use in video games isn't any worse than it being used on first aid boxes in real life. According to those rules, that's not allowed either. Currently, the symbol has become pretty synonymous with help or injury relief. I think that forcing things like first aid boxes and the like not to use the symbol would cause more harm with illiterate people than help the red cross.
Twilight Princess "hot lon lon milk" hack, anyone?
They also made a big deal how the GCN would play games in 480p, and now advertise that games support progressive scan, yet they force you to buy a used GCN if you want to play in 480p, because the new models of GCN don't even have a digital out anymore...
For some reason, i really can't see this happening. As long as there are going to be multiple platforms to release games on, there will be games like Madden, NCAA football, prince of persia (etc.) That have huge audiences, and developers will decide to release multi-console.
In my mind at least, multi-console releases hurt the revolution. In the current generation, all the consoles have reasonably similar hardware specs, and so while a game may look slightly better on the Xbox, playing the port of the game on PS2 doesn't change that much. However, with the revolution not supporting HD, and having noticibly worse hardware specs than Xbox 360 and PS3, multi-console games are going to look much better on the other consoles. I know if i had the choice of two identical games, one playng in HD with much better graphics, i'm going to pick that one every time.
What I see happening is if a devolper wants to be unique and fiddle with the new control system, they'll make a game for the revolution and see how it does, more mainstream games will just end up as PS3 and 360 titles.
In my mind, that is the biggest problem, the disconnect between the MPAA, and ESRB: while i understand the argument that when people play a game they experiance it more than just passivly watching a movie, that shouldn't be the reason for such different standards between how movies are rated and how games are rated. R rated movies routinely have much worse content than M rated games, and yet everyone seems to focus on the games as the problem.
In my mind, this disconnect is a problem, and there should be some sort of common standard that applies to both ratings systems.
I want to say a regular (non playoff) game will use less than half that number of balls.
The right not to testify against one another in court, Automatic Inheritance, Visitation rights if one of you gets arrested and sent to prison, being able to file for joint bankruptcy if you ever needed to... There are plenty of rights like that that are only given to married couples...
Unfortunately, I don't really see that many multi-console games getting to the revolution. Nintendo has taken the stance that they want their console to be "unique," and so they are opting out of stuff like HD support and the hardware capacity to handle the graphics of games that can run on Xbox 360 and PS3 in favor of a cheaper price point, and a very unique controller...
However, In my mind at least, this leads to a much larger gap between the various next-gen consoles... In the current generation of consoles, all the consoles have (reasonably) similar hardware specs, and ports can look reasonably similar. With the next-gen consoles, the revolution will (almost) always have a very noticable drop off in graphics from the PS3 and Xbox 360 version. I know if I had a rev and another console, i would always buy the PS3 or Xbox 360 version of whatever game came out... just because i want to be able to play it on my HDTV.
To me at least, i see devlopers making a lot of the mainstream games PS3 and Xbox 360 only, and when they want to experiment with a more unique game, that's when they'll develop for the revolution...
This isn't to say there won't be some great games on the revolution, i just don't see many multi-console ports coming.
wait, so you mean that all those girls in those chatrooms... those messages...
oh god, the horror!!!
gah, that's actually Griswold, not Griswald...
Under Griswald v. Connecticut (1965) the supreme court ruled that the right to privacy was one of the un-enumerated rights that makes up part of the 9th amendment. Roe v. Wade (1970) also cites the 9th amendment right to privacy. However, since then, the 9th amendment has pretty much faded from use in Supreme Court cases. But if there is a Constitutional right to privacy, it falls under the 9th Amendment.