|
| T O P I C | |
|
Achtung Activision!
August 13th 2000, 10:40 CEST by morn Soldier of Fortune has been classified as an "adult motion picture" in British Columbia. Now Activision wants to appeal the decision (thanks to the shack for the link, by way of Blue). Oh, this is so exciting; the USA's evil neighbour is taking a toy away from their innocent kids, and good old Activision strikes back. Wait a minute... what's wrong with this picture? It's half past ten, I've only slept for three hours and I'm feeling pretty messed up, so please excuse my not-so-well thought out ramblings. I'm not going to write much about this anyway, except one little semi-rant: the same thing that has happened to Soldier of Fortune in British Columbia has been happening in Germany for years (or rather decades), not only to quite a few Activision games (Quake 2, Quake 3 Arena, Soldier of Fortune and Kingpin, just to name a few). Obviously, over here in Germany it's happening under different legal circumstances, but I'm still starting to wonder why Activision now decides to take on a fight in British Columbia, but never really showed any interest in taking up the same fight in Krautland (and, instead, like many other publishers, even puts money and resources into producing special Kraut versions of their games)? I think I already know the answer... but I'm a jaded old fart whose day can now be saved only by a very strong cup of coffee, so I'll shut up this very instant. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Achtung Activision!
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
You know, I have to say that this is the first time I've been pleasantly surprised by PlanetCrap posters. It's no secret that I think you're a weird bunch most of the time, but I like what I've been seeing in this thread. |
|
<b>#47</b> "BloodKnight" wrote... <QUOTE> God damn it. we need editing :) </QUOTE> No, editing would be bad. That would turn this place into a farce with situations similar to what has happened at evilavatar. I'm the lazyiest speller here, and never seem to be able to pick the right instance the their and there, but I'll take my lumps knowing that if I take someone else to task on a comment, I wont have to worry about them making slight changes to it after the fact. just say no to editing.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Absolutely. If we had post editing here, I'd be the second to leave... straight after Morn. (Assuming his views on this haven't changed.) Cue the George and Scott performance of "<i>Let's Have Post Editing, Hurrah, Hurrah, Let's Kick Andy Out, Hurrah, Hurrah</i>". |
|
<b>BarneyQue</b> (#49): <QUOTE>just say no to editing.</QUOTE> Evil sucks! Back to the topic now, Activision is just the tobacco company for gaming <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#50</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>Cue the George and Scott performance of "<I>Let's Have Post Editing, Hurrah, Hurrah, Let's Kick Andy Out, Hurrah, Hurrah</I>". </QUOTE> Yes, we need a PlanetCrap song! I'll get started on it. If anyone wants to submit lyrics, email them to me at sgt_hulka@hulka.com It will take me a few weeks, but I'll get us a song! First PC, then CrapSpy, and now, OUR ANTHEM!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#46</b> "BloodKnight" wrote... <QUOTE> This is the same thing for SoF, SoF is rated 17+, but its really targetting kids. Proof? This appeal </QUOTE> Before we jump to this conclusion, as I understand it, they will no long be allowed to display this game in stores anywhere, which will kill its sales. The one year age difference is meaningless. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>Steve Bauman</b> (#53): <QUOTE>Before we jump to this conclusion, as I understand it, they will no long be allowed to display this game in stores anywhere, which will kill its sales. The one year age difference is meaningless. </QUOTE> Not really, we have porn, and well..look at it. Not saying it should be called 'an adult video', but there should be some sort of system to keep this away from kids. Name a game where you cut arms with a knife or use a magnum and rip off a arm from Iraq citizen? This isn't just another quake, its a really realistic gore game. And if you say this is wrong, then we might as well show pictures of suicide pictures or gun shot wounds in public <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#53</b>, Steve Bauman: <QUOTE> Before we jump to this conclusion, as I understand it, they will no long be allowed to display this game in stores anywhere, which will kill its sales. The one year age difference is meaningless. </QUOTE> Can they advertise it? (Posters, leaflets, etc.) |
|
Ack, I meant adverts, not leaflets. |
|
<b>Andy</b> (#55): <QUOTE>Can they advertise it? (Posters, leaflets, etc.) </QUOTE> Probably, they didn't say anything about ads, just the game itself. They should probably be in mags <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Well, let's suppose they can advertise in magazines, and <b>especially</b> if they can display posters in stores -- does Activision have any legitimate complaint, apart from the one year age difference? |
|
<b>Andy</b> (#58): <QUOTE>Well, let's suppose they can advertise in magazines, and <B>especially</B> if they can display posters in stores -- does Activision have any legitimate complaint, apart from the one year age difference? </QUOTE> Ha, yeah right. They still have exposure, only difference is only people 18 or over could buy it, which is what Activision doesn't want. I don't think they could complain, they still have ads to show to people in BC, so they have knowledge that such a game exist. Only a certain age group is required to buy the game <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#58</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE> Well, let's suppose they can advertise in magazines, and <B>especially</B> if they can display posters in stores -- does Activision have any legitimate complaint, apart from the one year age difference? </QUOTE> I believe that the actual physical box is the main draw for any product in retail. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#39</b> "Sgt Hulka" wrote... <QUOTE>It turns out that when the tobacco industry lost that giant settlement to the states, a portion of the money goes to thetruth.com to fund their commercials and websites. So yes, the tobacco company is paying for it, but I doubt they would have done it on their own, and as far as effectivness, I don't think it matters at all. Cigarattes already have warnings on the pack, people know the dangers, they don't need a commercial every day to remind them. It's a waste of money. I'd rather see the money going to help the homeless train for a new life, or housing projects, or something that can actually help society instead of lecturing to it. We get enough of that thought police crap in America already.</QUOTE> Acctauly they did for a while, a few states deamed their stuff inefficent (after only two weeks on the air) and demanded that a outside body take over (thus thetruth.com was born). O and Hulka your not throwing money at happies rants now are you :). Now onto the rating system. The system doesn't work, many people out side of gamers have no clue what those little symbols mean (never mind the fact that they can pick it up and read the stuff suronding it, just remember people are just to damn lasy to do that). Just look at the TV rating system here in the US 9not sure if it's used elsewhere), the first ratings where deamed to vage and froced to include letter codes for exactly why it was rated the way it was. Now we've got TV commersials, and guide books telling us what the original letter code for the rating was (ge what's TV-G mean again)and what the what do the ratings mean codes as well. Ratings are a great idea but every things needs to be based on the same ratings scale (TV, Movies, Games, books, what ever), this way the people that are too damn lasy (or stupid take your pick) to figure out the different systems would have a much easyer time with the whole thing. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
See, here's the problem as I see it: The one year age difference is the sticking point. If Activision is going to win this, that's how they'll do it -- arguing about the age difference between the ESRB rating and the BC 'adult' ruling. The government currently accepts the software industry's self-regulation, and therefore it officially (even if not really) has faith in the ESRB. The ESRB <i>does</i> have an adult rating, but it rated SoF as Mature (17+). The BC authorities have effectively said that the ESRB failed in its task of rating the game, which undermines the ESRB and therefore questions the industry's pledge of self-regulation. For Activision, and practically every other game company, the ruling in BC is a major threat. If games were to be state-regulated, the majority of action games (especially first-person shooters) would get adult ratings, and Activision is scared of that. |
|
<b>#54</b> "BloodKnight" wrote... <QUOTE> Not really, we have porn, and well..look at it. Not saying it should be called 'an adult video', but there should be some sort of system to keep this away from kids. Name a game where you cut arms with a knife or use a magnum and rip off a arm from Iraq citizen? This isn't just another quake, its a really realistic gore game. And if you say this is wrong, then we might as well show pictures of suicide pictures or gun shot wounds in public </QUOTE> Well, this isn't the equivalent of porn, though the Canadian law essentially says it is. The simplest solution is anyone under the age of 17 (or 18) needs to have a parent or someone ever 21 present to purchase the game. That's how R-rated movies work. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#62</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE> The BC authorities have effectively said that the ESRB failed in its task of rating the game, which undermines the ESRB and therefore questions the industry's pledge of self-regulation. </QUOTE> Is the ESRB US-only? --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#64</b>, Steve Bauman: <QUOTE> Is the ESRB US-only? </QUOTE> I don't know. I'd always assumed not, but following various discussions about this issue over the last few weeks I've got the impression that ESRB rulings apply in Canada too. Anyway, I'll be writing something on the subject later this week, so I'll have to find out. |
|
<b>Morn</b> (#18): <QUOTE>Just for the record: I, too, think it's very silly of Activision. What ticks me off, though, is the fact that as soon as this "problem" nears the glorious America, companies will make it an issue, but as long as it's only happening "on the other side of the planet", nobody really gives a shit. </QUOTE> Well, hold on there. Is America the only one who can do something about it? Why is your country waiting until the issue reaches this side of the ocean? Why does nobody over there raise a stink over it or fight the battle for themselves? :) <b>Morn</b> (#29): <QUOTE>Because now you need to be 18 years old to buy a game that has a disgustingly excessive amount of violence (and isn't even much fun)? Let's take it to the streets. :) </QUOTE> Yeah, but I think this really is the crux of the Soldier of Fortune uproar. It's not just violent (<i>as per Quake3 or UT</i>) ... it's <b>excessively</b> violent. Body parts fly off, blood flows like a river, you can dismember dead bodies, the game tracks and displays stats on groin shots, etc ... it goes WAY over the line. I like violent games, and I like Soldier of Fortune ... but I acknowledge that it's insane and gratuitous. <b>BloodKnight</b> (#34): <QUOTE>Now for my rant, wtf is with Activision? It looks like they want to sell to teenagers on SoF. If the rating was 17+ and a provience only 'bans' it for people lower then 18, so only 18+ could buy it, doesn't that make the rating more efficent? To tell the customer 'hey this is a bloody game you moron'? Its obvious that Activision wants customers younger then 17+ to buy this game. Just like the tobacco industry wants teenagers to smoke so they get addicted and have 'long term customers' ( <A href="http://www.thetruth.com/">thetruth.com</A> )</QUOTE> Well, there's also elements of "today this, tomorrow the world". If we let them restrict sales on ths game, what stops them from doing it to the next game. And so on ... they probably want to prevent a snowball effect ... you know how these things go. They always start out with good intentions and before you know it, "Whooops, looks like we've gone too far ... well, turning back a little would be the intelligent choice, but fuck it, let's just keep going!". Hmm, the same argument could be made against violence in games too ... <b>Andy</b> (#58): <QUOTE> Well, let's suppose they can advertise in magazines, and <B>especially</B> if they can display posters in stores -- does Activision have any legitimate complaint, apart from the one year age difference? </QUOTE> I would say they do, yes. When I walk into EB, I scan the rack of new releases and see if there's anything there I want. I don't even see the posters on the walls. What I see, is the huge number of Diablo2 boxes on the shelf and I grab one. I don't see a poster, think "that looks cool" and walk up the counter and ask the guy for a copy of the game from the back room. They'll never make a decent amount of sales that way. Only the truly hardcore guys who know what the game is will ask specifically for it at the counter. To make this work, ALL games would have to do it. Otherwise it isn't a fair market ... On another note ... what's with the multiple posts these days? Are people no longer capable of batching up their responses into one large message anymore? :) -- Warren Marshall - Professional Nuisance<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>Warren Marshall</b> (#66): <QUOTE>If we let them restrict sales on ths game, what stops them from doing it to the next game. </QUOTE> Not really, this hasn't happened to Unreal, Quake, Duke Nukem (Very shocked about this one), Doom, Wolf, and a lot others. SoF is the only game that tries to make it realistic gore with limps flying left and right. The problem is that it is 'too realistic' for a game. Quake isn't banned because it has a rocket launcher and a lot of unrealistic weapons, and you can't just walk up to a store and say "I like a pair of anti-tank" If the game has less realism, then people don't care. Even Alien Invanders had some violence, you didn't make peace with the aliens, you blow them up <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I'm just glad I'm about to be turning that golden age of 18, so I don't have to worry about all of this. Now, if an indexing system starts coming into play in America like it is in Germany, well hell.. we already know the government is going downhill anyway, right? -- Dethstryk Damage Gaming |
|
<quote> And by the way, doesn't this Canadian law mandate that the game cannot be placed on store shelves, that it has to be kept behind the counter? If that's the case, I'm guessing that's the issue, not the age rating. Behind the counter would be death to a game. </quote> No actually, the game can only be sold in adult stores (i.e. porno shops). If stores such as future shop or EB were to be caught with the game even behind the counter, they'd be fined heavily. -- SqueakyWeasel |
|
<b>SqueakyWeasel wrote in post #69:</b> <quote>No actually, the game can only be sold in adult stores (i.e. porno shops). </quote> Basically, you're going to have a lot of people in Canada that want to buy the game (just imagine with me), but they don't want to be seen walking into any kind of an adult store. I can really see why Activision would be pissed off here. -- Dethstryk Damage Gaming |
|
<b>#62</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>See, here's the problem as I see it: The one year age difference is the sticking point. If Activision is going to win this, that's how they'll do it -- arguing about the age difference between the ESRB rating and the BC 'adult' ruling. </QUOTE> Its a pointless venture. They won't win. Activision needs to spend its money on game development and marketing, not pursing nonsense such as this. The rating system was put there for a reason. And yes, it sucks. But, it is still something to go by. Here is an example of how bad it sucks: BC3K v2.0 has an ESRB rating of E (<i>everyone</i>) which now meant that Interplay was selling to Walmart, Toys R Us and every gas station (<i>no joke!! - people have reported seeing the CD-ROM only SKUs in a gas station</i>) in the country. Of course we've had several tech support calls and emails in which mothers, saw the nice box and bought the game for 9 yr old Timmy. We personally tell them to forget about asking where the full manual was (<i>its on the CD-ROM since Interplay only printed a 40-page quick guide</i>) but rather, for them to return the game and get a refund. Can you imagine a parent, who cares about what the kid is watching, playing, reading etc, buying the SOF game once they see the box, even if it has an ESRB rating of E on the box? Not bloody likely, mate. And yes, I've seen the the hypocritical postings and PR from Interplay and the developers, when they find their game slapped with such ratings. They were marketing the game as the most bloody and violent of them all (<i>look ma! I blow this guy up, limb by limb</i>) - now they want to cry foul. And funny enough, its the rating (<i>forget about the game itself being a mediocre shoot em up but which is still fun to play, if you are into that sort of thing</i>) and the content, which made it not sell well at retail. Mix in the issue of the different boxes (<i>a poor attempt at dodging the rating system</i>) and you have the situation hereing. Even before I became a parent several months ago, I was against violent games. And as a free-thinking intellectual, I am of the opinion that games, violent or not, have some psychological impact on the people playing them. This is akin to going to see a kick-ass movie, eg Matrix, and coming out of the theatre wanting to be Neo.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#67</b> "BloodKnight" wrote... <QUOTE>and you can't just walk up to a store and say "I like a pair of anti-tank" </QUOTE> drat!! here I was thinking you could do that in Serbia, Northern Island, Columbia and, *gasp*, California. :-) <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Derek Smart: hehe..;-) I'm not a big fan of government intervention unless it's absolutely necessary. Violence in video games is being used to pander to the masses w/ no knowledge of actual evidence. If people put more focus on family issues instead of government trying to parent our kids our society would be much better off. Maybe that's too idealistic.. As a free society there will be those who fall through the cracks. That's just how it ends up. It may be unfortunate, but that's reality. - Paul |
|
BarneyQue: You make a good argument, but as far as the United States is concerned, we imprison more by percentage than almost any other first world country. A lot of which are nonsense arrests. The bottom line is, people will fall through the cracks, and in a democracy the masses should rule. I guess the difference in opinion comes in that freedom to me is more important than the few who fall through the cracks. Also, I know that in the US kids will get it however they can. It's very_very easy. I should mention that I don't really care for the blood and guts in games. I don't like it one bit in fact. But, I believe that freedom is more important than regulation. - Paul |
|
<b>#34</b> "BloodKnight" wrote... <QUOTE> Just like the tobacco industry wants teenagers to smoke so they get addicted and have 'long term customers' ( thetruth.com</A> )</QUOTE> isn't that how companys always work? <i>this is how it works in holland:</i> at the age of 10-18 you get completly sick of al the banks that want you for a special youngster account so that you will still be a customer at the age of 65.. (and they keep pushing...) -- I'm just Rubber Duckie in German <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#74</b> "Paul A. Bullman" wrote... <QUOTE> The bottom line is, people will fall through the cracks, and in a democracy the masses should rule. </QUOTE> Yeah, but what about a Republic like the United States? --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#60</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE>I believe that the actual physical box is the main draw for any product in retail. </QUOTE> jup you can put a lifesize doll of the person you play in SOF but if the game's not on the shelf you won't buy the game that fast... (I always like to read the description of the game, the sys requierments and stuff) -- I'm just Rubber Duckie in German <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#71</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>Even before I became a parent several months ago, I was against violent games. And as a free-thinking intellectual, I am of the opinion that games, violent or not, have some psychological impact on the people playing them. This is akin to going to see a kick-ass movie, eg Matrix, and coming out of the theatre wanting to be Neo.</QUOTE> they have an impact of course but it's still better than don't have a way to vent your agression wich won't hurt anyone... but that's just my vision.. -- I'm just Rubber Duckie in German <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#52</b> "Sgt Hulka" wrote this stuff" <QUOTE>It will take me a few weeks, but I'll get us a song! First PC, then CrapSpy, and now, OUR ANTHEM!</QUOTE> Yeah, a song - to go along with our web site, Crapspy, IRC channel, and our prayer (if anybody remembers that one.) <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#67</b> "BloodKnight" wrote... <QUOTE>Not really, this hasn't happened to Unreal, Quake, Duke Nukem (Very shocked about this one), Doom, Wolf, and a lot others. </QUOTE> Um, where have you been SoF is only on the hit list because of the school shootings in the US (and a fear the same things will spread if some thing is not done about it all over the place). Had that stuff not happened (or not been such a big news item) SoF wouldn't be an issuse right now just like the others. Just watch Q3 and UT will be next. -- None-1a. Sure the spelling looks stupid, but how stupid do you look, after all your only argument is that I'm spelling poorly.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>None-1a</b> (#80): <QUOTE>Um, where have you been SoF is only on the hit list because of the school shootings in the US (and a fear the same things will spread if some thing is not done about it all over the place). Had that stuff not happened (or not been such a big news item) SoF wouldn't be an issuse right now just like the others. Just watch Q3 and UT will be next. </QUOTE> I was reading articles on how parents let their 4 year old son play "House of the dead" in the arcades <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<QUOTE>No actually, the game can only be sold in adult stores (i.e. porno shops). If stores such as future shop or EB were to be caught with the game even behind the counter, they'd be fined heavily. </QUOTE> This is the point that almost everyone is missing and I'm sure is the major reason why Activision is not happy. Computer game companies don't have a problem with puting ratings on the boxes, but they sure as hell don't want to be yanked out of the mainstream retail distribution market. Could you imagine the stink that would be raised here in the US if our government said that certain video games could only be sold in "adult" stores? I'm all for a rating system on videogames and having it enforced by the retailers, but this current situation is just not cool. |
|
<b>#69</b> "SqueakyWeasel" wrote... <QUOTE> No actually, the game can only be sold in adult stores (i.e. porno shops). If stores such as future shop or EB were to be caught with the game even behind the counter, they'd be fined heavily. -- SqueakyWeasel </QUOTE> Can I get a link on this point? I'm familiar with the extra rating that has been assigned, but I've yet to see where it states that I won't be able to purchase this title from a store in BC that would typically stock such an item. I'd like to read up further on how we get to that conclusion. The article linked in the topic header here, only states the following: <quote>The classification is similar to an X-rating under film-industry guidelines, meaning rentals or sales of the game to anyone under 18 are illegal and that retailers would have to stock it separately.</quote> To me that means something to the effect that it's behind the counter, or placed in a seperate restricted area in the store limited to adults. It does not say that the game stores will have to open up a porno shop if they want to sell or rent the title. The wording from the linked article states that the classification is <b>similar</b> to an X-rating, not an exact copy. Further, while I live in Ontario, several provinces east of BC, rental stores in Ontario are free to stock R rated titles in the same facility as the general family entertainment. That the big name chains such as Blockbuster choose not to stock the titles at all, is there own voluntary doing. Get out of the big cities, and visit a small town without a Blockbuster type chain, and you will find all your viewing needs under one roof albeit, the adult targeted material is 'stocked seperatly'. That we find people making love on film more objectionable for children than murder is beyond me though. I guess that's another topic though. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>BloodKnight</b> (#81): <QUOTE>I was reading articles on how parents let their 4 year old son play "House of the dead" in the arcades </QUOTE> So? That game has zombies and weird creatures, all of which spew green blood. Not quite the same situation as dismembering and torturing human beings in SoF ... -- Warren Marshall - Professional Nuisance<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#84</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote... <QUOTE> So? That game has zombies and weird creatures, all of which spew green blood. Not quite the same situation as dismembering and torturing human beings in SoF ... </QUOTE> Watching little kids play ANY lightgun game is rather disturbing... if you want to make a case that Quake improves your aim, I laugh. But those games, hmm... --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Wow, stuff like this, makes a game rating seem pretty trivial. <quote>In conservative Saudi Arabia, there are no cinemas or theaters. Restaurants are segregated by gender, and men and women are not allowed to mingle in public. Saudi authorities only allowed Internet servers to begin operating in the kingdom in January 1999. Previously, subscribers called long distance to providers in the United States, Bahrain or Cyprus.</quote> Is this even true, or is it some messed up western reporting? Pretty interesting either way. For reference, I found the quoted material here: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2513417.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Just a couple of quickies... Andy: <quote>Activision submits its products for rating by the ESRB. The ESRB ruled that Soldier of Fortune had content "suitable for persons ages 17 and older". The adult rating in British Columbia means that nobody under 18 can buy the game. </quote> and Gestalt: <quote>The gaming industry itself (in the form of the ESRB or whatever it's called) rated the game 17. For Activision to then turn around and whinge about it being rated 18 in part of Canada is stupid </quote> Okay, maybe it seems stupid but think about this: Th MPAA and the RIAA have all of their ratings on the boxes and such and those are enforced (and usually pretty damn well) across the board in movies theaters and music chains. Note that the enforcemen is at the retail level. There are fines and such levied on those products that are not to be sold to minors, or not allowing minors into them, which causes the fendors to comply, as they do not really know when they're liable to be caught, either by authorities or "investigative media (and lord, have I seen a boatload of these things reported since the media's sensationalistic holy grail of school shootings)" These work very well, to the point that when I was in college, a young looking dorm resident (who was younger than I) got carded for going into a PG-13 (no patrons under age 13 without parent or guardian) flick. That provided months of ribbing, but that's another story. So why is it that computer games should be more forcibly and zealously "enforced" to the point of censorship? Simply because it's a newer medium? Overall point (And yeah, I imagine it's lost in the above pretty badly) why is the game itself being banned to having to be sold solely in "adult shops"? Any other retailer has to be the gatekeeper on any number of products. The games (ALL of them) have a rating on them. So why is it suddenly that the retailer isn't being held responsible as they should be, and as they are in EVERY OTHER iteration of this and similar situations? Derek Smart: <quote>Are you actually following this discussion and understanding the points being raised? Raven and Activision set out to do a violent game. They knew the consequences. That fairy Lieberman, who will most likely be VP, has been guning for our collective industry butts forever. So, the ratings exist for a specific reason (just like every other rating system). Doing a violent game these days is like doing a niche game, say, a flight sim. Don't expect a large market. </quote> Okay, yes. The ratings <i>do</i> indeed exist for a reason. So why not enforce those ratings instead of slaping layer upon layer of even more restrictive ratings and such on them? Why not try actually enforcing the rules that already exist without trying to give the extra stigma (and quite frankly, exposure) to what you're trying to help control? Like it or not, and say what you want about the game, but it's this same sort of extra exposure in the media and such that made games like <i>Postal, Carmageddon, Grand Theft Auto, <i>and</i> <i>Harvester</i> sell more than any of them should or would have ever sold on their individual merit alone. Also, and this is a sincere question, do you really think that the government and various legislation should be making the parental choices for the parents? I mean, the job of a paren is to watch out for your children's (and even other's children's) well-being. As it is, we're already in a state of existence where parents are more likely to blame schools, television, computers, video games, and whatever else for anything their children do because they expected THOSE THINGS to be able to be the entities that raise their children rather than actually taking the responsibility themselves. And usually so they can get the kids out of their hair so they can watch <i>Wheel of Fortune</i> and <i>Hollywood Squares</i>. Personally I think we'd be better off if we spent more time worrying about the people who are supposedly "raising" these kids and maybe regulating them, rather than the games or television they watch. Parenting people. It's the most important role you can ever have, and the easiest one to get into. Maybe THAT oughta be licensed a bit. |
|
Oooh... and the amazing PC/HTML tags of doom come up and bite me in the ass... |
|
<b>#86</b> "BarneyQue" wrote... <QUOTE> <quote>Saudi authorities only allowed Internet servers to begin operating in the kingdom in January 1999. Previously, subscribers called long distance to providers in the United States, Bahrain or Cyprus.</quote> </QUOTE> I got an e-mail from a reader who was in Saudi Arabia, and every issue of our magazine is opened and black marks are put through any picture of a woman with any exposed portions of her body. If it's, say, a full-page Tomb Raider ad, it will be ripped out of the magazine. And the guy did mention all e-mail is screened going in-and-out of the country. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#81</b> "BloodKnight" wrote... <QUOTE>I was reading articles on how parents let their 4 year old son play "House of the dead" in the arcades </QUOTE> And had not of the bad things from the last few years happened you would not have an article to read about that in. <b>#85</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE>Watching little kids play ANY lightgun game is rather disturbing... if you want to make a case that Quake improves your aim, I laugh. But those games, hmm... </QUOTE> Steve if you think those light guns are any where near the same level as a real gun you've got a few things to learn. Majorly they are missing two things that would make them feel real, kick back and balance. Hell police traners use a simmaler thing in many areas and use real guns with in guts riped out and replaced to get the feal right, and simulated kick back. It's disturbing but it's not making their aim any better (ever see how inacuratly most lightguns are calibrated). -- None-1a. Sure the spelling looks stupid, but how stupid do you look, after all your only argument is that I'm spelling poorly.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#89</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE> <B>#86</B> "BarneyQue" wrote... <quote> <quote>Saudi authorities only allowed Internet servers to begin operating in the kingdom in January 1999. Previously, subscribers called long distance to providers in the United States, Bahrain or Cyprus.</quote> </quote> I got an e-mail from a reader who was in Saudi Arabia, and every issue of our magazine is opened and black marks are put through any picture of a woman with any exposed portions of her body. If it's, say, a full-page Tomb Raider ad, it will be ripped out of the magazine. And the guy did mention all e-mail is screened going in-and-out of the country. --- "My life is a patio of fun."</QUOTE> No shit eh? Wow. I try not to sound so shocked at this, but it's a big mental leap to get my mind wrapped around things like this. I wonder about the cost of your magazine in such a land, it must be brutally expensive. Ahh well, another country for me to make a point of studying, should be interesting. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#91</b> "BarneyQue" wrote... <QUOTE>No shit eh? Wow. I try not to sound so shocked at this, but it's a big mental leap to get my mind wrapped around things like this. </QUOTE> Why, it's almost common knolage that many middlester muslum contries have laws reqiring all momen to show no skin (even foriners travling in some have problems with these laws). -- None-1a. Sure the spelling looks stupid, but how stupid do you look, after all your only argument is that I'm spelling poorly.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#92</b> "None-1a" wrote... <QUOTE> <B>#91</B> "BarneyQue" wrote... <quote>No shit eh? Wow. I try not to sound so shocked at this, but it's a big mental leap to get my mind wrapped around things like this. </quote> Why, it's almost common knolage that many middlester muslum contries have laws reqiring all momen to show no skin (even foriners travling in some have problems with these laws). -- None-1a. Sure the spelling looks stupid, but how stupid do you look, after all your only argument is that I'm spelling poorly.</QUOTE> Yes, it is, and I knew that. I was trying to appear facinated by the whole thing rather than stupid. What's interesing to me is that the lifestyle applies to much more than just female clothing. I did not know they had segregated restraunts or no theater or cimema for example. Do they even have TV's? I don't know. I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from a religious belief that females need to remain covered up to having all your mail pre-screened, and your magazines torn up. Either way, stupid as it might seem on the surface, I find it all quite facinating.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>None-1a wrote in post #90:</b> <quote>Steve if you think those light guns are any where near the same level as a real gun you've got a few things to learn. Majorly they are missing two things that would make them feel real, kick back and balance. Hell police traners use a simmaler thing in many areas and use real guns with in guts riped out and replaced to get the feal right, and simulated kick back. </quote> None-1a, I think he was making a point about how no one complains about lightguns or things like that, and instead focus on video games instead of something more like handling a real gun. Games and laser-tag type stuff are far from real guns, but the latter is close than games are. -- Dethstryk Damage Gaming |
|
<b>#94</b> "Dethstryk" wrote... <QUOTE> Games and laser-tag type stuff are far from real guns, but the latter is close than games are. </QUOTE> Paintball is even closer. Don't see many complaints about that. Of course the problem with light guns and laser-tag is that it teaches kids that when you pull the trigger on a gun-like object nothing much happens. Point a Nintendo light gun at a friend and click-click, likewise with laser tag. At least there's some consequences with a paintball gun.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#93</b> "BarneyQue" wrote... <QUOTE>Do they even have TV's? I don't know. I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from a religious belief that females need to remain covered up to having all your mail pre-screened, and your magazines torn up. </QUOTE> Yes there are TV's but stations need to be approved by the government in many places (internet access is also cencered quite a bit bepending on area). You see religious belief is law over there in many areas, when you've got people that are fanatical about their beliefs making the polices some crasy shit happens to keep them that way (O and resturant would more then likly be sepperate since the men and woman are required to eat sepeartly, then again the women are expected to make the food so for many it boule be a moot point). -- None-1a. Sure the spelling looks stupid, but how stupid do you look, after all your only argument is that I'm spelling poorly.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#91</b> "BarneyQue" wrote... <QUOTE> No shit eh? Wow. I try not to sound so shocked at this, but it's a big mental leap to get my mind wrapped around things like this. I wonder about the cost of your magazine in such a land, it must be brutally expensive. </QUOTE> Yeah, I thought it was a trip. I think it was an American soldier, so the cost is identical (we have lots of readers in the military throughout the world). --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Achtung Activision!
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|