Was there a need for the exclamation mark at the end? Makes it look like: "Super Hyper Fun Fun Happy Columbine Massacre RPG!!"
That's the point. It's poking fun at the fact that game titles hype up violence. It also pokes fun at the fact that some people are unwilling to get beyond the title to serious look at the game, essentially judging the book by it's cover...
I disagree that it's censorship in the legal sense. But market pressure can cause "chilling effects", and it's disappointing when the market refuses to support indie artists just because they're afraid of complaints from the mob, most of whom don't even know what the game is trying to do.
Did any of these sponsors equally threaten Sundance financially when it aired/nominated Elephant or Zero Day?
There's rather big difference between addressing a tough subject matter and not using a real event or even turning a real event into a movie and turning a real event into a game.
Forget game. Try wording it as follows: "There's rather big difference between addressing a tough subject matter and not using a real event or even turning a real event into a movie and turning a real event into a interactive movie."
MTV can tackle the horrors of Darfur through interactive flash animations, why can't an interactive RPG walk you through the events of that day? Why is it less deserving than a movie that does the same? Or is it just that you don't consider "games" as capable of tackling serious issues? Is it just the use of medium that you object to?
I see know reason to sympathize with people who claim to be producing thoughtful content but treat it in a way that is inexcusably sophomoric.
I'll grant you that it may have been a poor choice of title. But isn't it also a commentary on the fact that a) people judge a book by it's cover (would you play "Super Gory Nazi Slaughter Simulator, now with Extra Blood!", aka Castle Wolfenstein), b) people who can't get past the title maybe shouldn't be judging it at all, and c) possibly to make you think about how some games overhype the fact that they are "ultra" violent. It's tongue in cheek, just like Bowling for Columbine isn't really about how Columbine was caused by bowling...
The sponsors felt that this game would offend more paying customers than it interested, which would be bad for corporate PR both in the short run and the long run. It was a sound business decision.
Just felt I had to clarify that. The sponsors basically told Slamdance that they were pulling out just because of the controversy surrounding the nomination. The judges clearly felt that SCMRPG was a worthy selection, or they wouldn't have chosen it in the first place.
Ironically, the author initially resisted the idea, because he forsaw the media circus it would cause. I guess he knew that an interactive quasi-documentary wouldn't get the same respect as a "real" quasi-documentary.
These festivals are supposed to be for celebrating artists who dare to tackle the issue the mob-friendly mass-production studios won't touch. That's the whole point.
Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?
There's a new type of game out there, Serious Games. The flash games MTV sponsored to raise awareness of Darfur are another example. They're not meant to be "fun", they're meant to explore their subject material using an "interactive medium".
If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.
Have you tried playing it? Or have you just decided that it's "clearly for entertainment" just because NBC said so? Please don't fall into that trap. As I mentioned in an above comment, think of this as an interactive documentary, with some fictional elements added in (the trip to Hell for one) in an attempt to walk you through the thought processes of the killers. You're not meant to have "fun", you're meant to understand what happened. Demonizing the killers and leaving it at that does nothing to prevent the next crisis. Understanding their emotions, their thoughts, what they were going through, will help you to better figure out WHY.
When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".
I disagree. I read it to say "Freedom of speech allows me to discuss controversial issues that would otherwise be banned by the mob." Besides, movies doing the exact same thing (Elephant, Zero Day) got film awards for walking you through the exact same material. Were they "fun"? Of course not.
Neither did Elephant, but it won a Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Or Zero Day, which also won several independant film awards.
If a movie touches a controversial subject, it's considered avant-guard and the director worthy of praise for daring to tackle such a "hard" issue. If a serious game that uses an interactive medium to try to do the same (SCMRPG is basically Zero Day in RPG form), it's not even worthy of consideration?
Classic 1984'ish stuff. You take away, then proclaim the reduction as an "improvement". I believe in the book they were using chocolate rations, but hey, information can be rationed too...
Riiight, I'm sure the giant government conspiracy to hide global warming is the main reason that this is being set up. Nice spin there, poster.
I'm sure you can come up with an equally valid reason to have USGS information screened for "politically-sensitive" reasons?
Translation: either they want to be alerted in advance of stuff they can take credit for, or they want to tweak press releases of embarassing info. It's a classic CYA move.
Are there pictographs showing hundreds of slaves pushing/pulling a giant slab up the face?
I don't have any links, but I have seen tomb wall paintings depicting quarryers making large blocks (mostly on quarry chief's tomb walls), pullers, workers pouring water over wood & mud to make the blocks slide easier, etc.
Of course, some state that these paintings were just put there on the direction of the aliens, a conspiracy to deceive as it were.
I suppose technically it's an update, clarifying how SCO was trying to avoid showing evidence, through claiming IP infringement.
The rest is dupe though.
Sorry, my earlier post was slightly incorrect. A judge ruled late 2004 that applying the levy to mp3 players wasn't legal. Only blank recordable media could be taxed (although some stores still consider it "unjust" and refuse to collect it from the consumer).
a label-imposed "tax" on those players to cover "stolen content" won't fly.
They're just mad because the Cdn courts ruled that "blank media" taxes to compensate recording companies (which applied to CDs, DVDs, and mp3 players like iPods), wasn't legal, and they had to give the money back. So now they're trying to impose it through browbeating mp3 player manufacturers.
Woah! A whole 15 pages? That must be rough. Who do they have running those polling stations?
Just because it's "only" 15 pages, doesn't mean it's 15 pages of useful info. I'm willing to bet that 5 pages are "stuff you shouldn't do with the unit" like "warning! not for interal use!" and "warning! do not operate when when". 3-4 page of FCC certification "this unit doesn't emit interference, and accepts interference from other units", and finally, one page of troubleshooting, which covers "try turning it off and on again" and "please call tech support (not open election day)". The other pages are likely a "quick start" guide, on how to power on the unit, and how to insert/retreive the memory card, but likely not too much info on what to do if something goes wrong...
Woah! A whole 15 pages? That must be rough. Who do they have running those polling stations?
Some 15 page manuals can contain 14.95 pages of useless junk. There was probably even 3-4 pages of "this product is not for internal use", "warning! do not operate when wet", "caution! do not attempt to insert memory card into ear". 2 pages of FCC certification for electrical interference, and maybe 5 pages of "how to turn on this unit". Troubleshooting was probably 1 page of "if the unit behaves strangely, call 1-800-we-don't-answer-the-phone for prompt service hours (office closed electionday)"
If they give up their common carrier status by deciding what is and isn't appropriate, they can now be held responsible for all the inappropriate (and illegal) material that goes through their network. That includes p2p, spam, etc.
As long as it's not blasting out data...
on
USB To Go Wireless
·
· Score: 1
on the same frequency as all my other "wireless" devices. I've already got a joystick I can't use in proximity to my phone, my wireless A/V catches interference from my bluetooth mouse and the phone, and my wireless mouse craps out if the microwave's on at the other end of the house. Will this add to my troubles?
1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence"
2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay"
3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.
Technically he did. He never actually formally ruled whether it was a "public nuisance" or not. He just made that offhand comment about the level of violence, and dismissed the case.
Officially, he wouldn't have been able to rule, since prior restraint in the US requires one of the following:
a) incitement to riot
b) obscenity
c) state secrets
Seeing as how Bully contained none of the above, he wouldn't have been able to rule on it.
I was going from the info as available at the time. Destructoid.com hadn't yet updated their website of their on-the-spot coverage to make it clear that Take Two had offered to bring the game in without an order.
Technically the judge did make the order, he just refused to make official, because that would "take too much time". He actually yelled at them for requesting the proper paperwork...
"They didn't spot Hot Coffee but the game was rated 18 already so it didn't matter anyway."
True, but they didn't spot Oblivion either, and it was only rated T & 16+. Granted EU countries don't bust a hernia over nudity, but they didn't exactly spot it either.
"The ESRB could split the M rating into a 16 M rating and an 18 S (severe) or something rating while AO remains reserved for hardcore pornography."
I completely agree. I've always thought it silly that their highest rating for non-porn is 17, but porn is 18.
Re:Does the MPAA rate computer games in the US?
on
Is the ESRB Broken?
·
· Score: 1
I'm assuming by your question that you associate the MPAA with the BBFC. The difference is that the MPAA doesn't have legislative backing, and is as voluntary as the ESRB is. In most other countries that have ratings boards, there's one singular unit responsible (except in Canada, where there's one for each province/region).
So the answer would be no, the MPAA does not rate games. Just movies.
I'm guessing the brouhaha in the US was mostly because people weren't paying attention to the ratings anyway, since games are for kids, right? What? Games can have prostitutes? And crime? I had no idea a game called Grand Theft Auto would contain mature subjects!
Slashdot Mirror
Was there a need for the exclamation mark at the end? Makes it look like: "Super Hyper Fun Fun Happy Columbine Massacre RPG!!"
That's the point. It's poking fun at the fact that game titles hype up violence. It also pokes fun at the fact that some people are unwilling to get beyond the title to serious look at the game, essentially judging the book by it's cover...
I disagree that it's censorship in the legal sense. But market pressure can cause "chilling effects", and it's disappointing when the market refuses to support indie artists just because they're afraid of complaints from the mob, most of whom don't even know what the game is trying to do.
Did any of these sponsors equally threaten Sundance financially when it aired/nominated Elephant or Zero Day?
There's rather big difference between addressing a tough subject matter and not using a real event or even turning a real event into a movie and turning a real event into a game.
Forget game. Try wording it as follows: "There's rather big difference between addressing a tough subject matter and not using a real event or even turning a real event into a movie and turning a real event into a interactive movie."
MTV can tackle the horrors of Darfur through interactive flash animations, why can't an interactive RPG walk you through the events of that day? Why is it less deserving than a movie that does the same? Or is it just that you don't consider "games" as capable of tackling serious issues? Is it just the use of medium that you object to?
I see know reason to sympathize with people who claim to be producing thoughtful content but treat it in a way that is inexcusably sophomoric.
I'll grant you that it may have been a poor choice of title. But isn't it also a commentary on the fact that a) people judge a book by it's cover (would you play "Super Gory Nazi Slaughter Simulator, now with Extra Blood!", aka Castle Wolfenstein), b) people who can't get past the title maybe shouldn't be judging it at all, and c) possibly to make you think about how some games overhype the fact that they are "ultra" violent. It's tongue in cheek, just like Bowling for Columbine isn't really about how Columbine was caused by bowling...
The sponsors felt that this game would offend more paying customers than it interested, which would be bad for corporate PR both in the short run and the long run. It was a sound business decision.
Just felt I had to clarify that. The sponsors basically told Slamdance that they were pulling out just because of the controversy surrounding the nomination. The judges clearly felt that SCMRPG was a worthy selection, or they wouldn't have chosen it in the first place.
Ironically, the author initially resisted the idea, because he forsaw the media circus it would cause. I guess he knew that an interactive quasi-documentary wouldn't get the same respect as a "real" quasi-documentary.
These festivals are supposed to be for celebrating artists who dare to tackle the issue the mob-friendly mass-production studios won't touch. That's the whole point.
Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?
There's a new type of game out there, Serious Games. The flash games MTV sponsored to raise awareness of Darfur are another example. They're not meant to be "fun", they're meant to explore their subject material using an "interactive medium".
If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.
Have you tried playing it? Or have you just decided that it's "clearly for entertainment" just because NBC said so? Please don't fall into that trap. As I mentioned in an above comment, think of this as an interactive documentary, with some fictional elements added in (the trip to Hell for one) in an attempt to walk you through the thought processes of the killers. You're not meant to have "fun", you're meant to understand what happened. Demonizing the killers and leaving it at that does nothing to prevent the next crisis. Understanding their emotions, their thoughts, what they were going through, will help you to better figure out WHY.
When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".
I disagree. I read it to say "Freedom of speech allows me to discuss controversial issues that would otherwise be banned by the mob." Besides, movies doing the exact same thing (Elephant, Zero Day) got film awards for walking you through the exact same material. Were they "fun"? Of course not.
It doesn't sound like a very tasteful game.
Neither did Elephant, but it won a Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Or Zero Day, which also won several independant film awards.
If a movie touches a controversial subject, it's considered avant-guard and the director worthy of praise for daring to tackle such a "hard" issue. If a serious game that uses an interactive medium to try to do the same (SCMRPG is basically Zero Day in RPG form), it's not even worthy of consideration?
Classic 1984'ish stuff. You take away, then proclaim the reduction as an "improvement". I believe in the book they were using chocolate rations, but hey, information can be rationed too...
Riiight, I'm sure the giant government conspiracy to hide global warming is the main reason that this is being set up. Nice spin there, poster.
I'm sure you can come up with an equally valid reason to have USGS information screened for "politically-sensitive" reasons?
Translation: either they want to be alerted in advance of stuff they can take credit for, or they want to tweak press releases of embarassing info. It's a classic CYA move.
So only terrorists or terrorist sympathizers would order the salisbury steak in-flight?
Code Red, he ordered desert! I say again, HE ORDERED THE DESERT!!! GO! GO! GO!
Are there pictographs showing hundreds of slaves pushing/pulling a giant slab up the face?
I don't have any links, but I have seen tomb wall paintings depicting quarryers making large blocks (mostly on quarry chief's tomb walls), pullers, workers pouring water over wood & mud to make the blocks slide easier, etc.
Of course, some state that these paintings were just put there on the direction of the aliens, a conspiracy to deceive as it were.
I suppose technically it's an update, clarifying how SCO was trying to avoid showing evidence, through claiming IP infringement. The rest is dupe though.
and you forget to send it later, does that cause the universe to implode?
"I want to squirt you a picture of my kids. You want to squirt me back a video of your vacation. That's [an] experience," he said.
I'll bet it is. I think I'll pass though. I don't want Steve Balmer squirting things at me.
Honestly, what strange part of his brain thinks that even SOUNDS right?
Sorry, my earlier post was slightly incorrect. A judge ruled late 2004 that applying the levy to mp3 players wasn't legal. Only blank recordable media could be taxed (although some stores still consider it "unjust" and refuse to collect it from the consumer).
a label-imposed "tax" on those players to cover "stolen content" won't fly.
They're just mad because the Cdn courts ruled that "blank media" taxes to compensate recording companies (which applied to CDs, DVDs, and mp3 players like iPods), wasn't legal, and they had to give the money back. So now they're trying to impose it through browbeating mp3 player manufacturers.
Woah! A whole 15 pages? That must be rough. Who do they have running those polling stations?
Just because it's "only" 15 pages, doesn't mean it's 15 pages of useful info. I'm willing to bet that 5 pages are "stuff you shouldn't do with the unit" like "warning! not for interal use!" and "warning! do not operate when when". 3-4 page of FCC certification "this unit doesn't emit interference, and accepts interference from other units", and finally, one page of troubleshooting, which covers "try turning it off and on again" and "please call tech support (not open election day)". The other pages are likely a "quick start" guide, on how to power on the unit, and how to insert/retreive the memory card, but likely not too much info on what to do if something goes wrong...
Woah! A whole 15 pages? That must be rough. Who do they have running those polling stations?
Some 15 page manuals can contain 14.95 pages of useless junk. There was probably even 3-4 pages of "this product is not for internal use", "warning! do not operate when wet", "caution! do not attempt to insert memory card into ear". 2 pages of FCC certification for electrical interference, and maybe 5 pages of "how to turn on this unit". Troubleshooting was probably 1 page of "if the unit behaves strangely, call 1-800-we-don't-answer-the-phone for prompt service hours (office closed electionday)"
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060909
If they give up their common carrier status by deciding what is and isn't appropriate, they can now be held responsible for all the inappropriate (and illegal) material that goes through their network. That includes p2p, spam, etc.
on the same frequency as all my other "wireless" devices. I've already got a joystick I can't use in proximity to my phone, my wireless A/V catches interference from my bluetooth mouse and the phone, and my wireless mouse craps out if the microwave's on at the other end of the house. Will this add to my troubles?
1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence"
2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay"
3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.
Technically he did. He never actually formally ruled whether it was a "public nuisance" or not. He just made that offhand comment about the level of violence, and dismissed the case.
Officially, he wouldn't have been able to rule, since prior restraint in the US requires one of the following:
a) incitement to riot
b) obscenity
c) state secrets
Seeing as how Bully contained none of the above, he wouldn't have been able to rule on it.
I was going from the info as available at the time. Destructoid.com hadn't yet updated their website of their on-the-spot coverage to make it clear that Take Two had offered to bring the game in without an order.
Technically the judge did make the order, he just refused to make official, because that would "take too much time". He actually yelled at them for requesting the proper paperwork...
"They didn't spot Hot Coffee but the game was rated 18 already so it didn't matter anyway."
True, but they didn't spot Oblivion either, and it was only rated T & 16+. Granted EU countries don't bust a hernia over nudity, but they didn't exactly spot it either.
"The ESRB could split the M rating into a 16 M rating and an 18 S (severe) or something rating while AO remains reserved for hardcore pornography."
I completely agree. I've always thought it silly that their highest rating for non-porn is 17, but porn is 18.
I'm assuming by your question that you associate the MPAA with the BBFC. The difference is that the MPAA doesn't have legislative backing, and is as voluntary as the ESRB is. In most other countries that have ratings boards, there's one singular unit responsible (except in Canada, where there's one for each province/region).
So the answer would be no, the MPAA does not rate games. Just movies.
I'm guessing the brouhaha in the US was mostly because people weren't paying attention to the ratings anyway, since games are for kids, right? What? Games can have prostitutes? And crime? I had no idea a game called Grand Theft Auto would contain mature subjects!
You forget, Europe isn't run by religious fundies who think that no games should contain anything more offensive than the word "poop".
Q. Did those testers spot Hot Coffee?