You're fucking deluded? I'm sorry, people with terrible opinions just make me angry, and we've had run-ins before, so I'll just preempt your self-righteousness and attack your premises. Firstly, you think just waiting another year until you're eighteen is perfectly acceptable when I would be more than willing to bet you didn't wait and had your parents buy them for you. Now, they can't get their hands on it at all until then, regardless of parents. Games are pornography to you, waiting to hurt children. I'd be willing to contend that not even pornography is that harmful, but that's another discussion entirely. When I was a kid, about nine or ten, Die Hard with a Vengeance was probably my favorite movie. I couldn't tell you why. I only knew that the director, John McTiernan, had done something cool. I've since seen the first one, and it became my favorite movie of all time, inspiring me to be a film major. I never liked things that catered to children. I was too fucking smart and whenever I did watch a kiddie movie, it felt like they were talking down to me. When I got older, about twelve or so, we got a PS2, along with Metal Gear Solid 2. The original was fantastic, but the second one blew my fucking mind. I knew what games could be. It also reinforced my film major plans. I honestly have nothing to combat you, since your argument is structurally unsound, ("Should" fallacy.) I can't disagree enough with you, as I would not be the person that I like and that my friends like today without having played, seen, and read everything I have.

Besides, I've seen dead bodies rolled out of hotel rooms under bloody sheets every night on the news, since I was born. And it'll still be that way. Famous starlet showing her snatch getting out of an Escalade. It's acceptable to be bombarded with otherwise reprehensible imagery, so long as it's not a game or movie.

I think you should pause and think about your past. Old(er) people seem to find new ways, every generation, to say that the new generation is worse than theirs. It's ageist. I didn't have any money growing up, so all my family had was an SNES until 2002 or so, when we got a PS2. I eat, slept, and breathed Super Mario World. I had one game, andI was thinking about it constantly, just as obsessive as if I woud've had Doom. (Obsession in my mind, being far worse than exposure to violent imagery.) When I wasn't playing it, I was talking about it to friends. Coincidentally, playing a shit-ton of games as a kid makes you a lot of friends. Just thought I'd put that out there.

It's just, people find it really easy to lose perspective, which is sad. I'll never lose connection with how hard it was, sometimes, getting a hold of great games, having people tell me I can't do something, can't watch something, simply because I wasn't of age proper. Suppression of information to youths is disgusting and something I find intolerable.

[quote=Fathom Zero;698663]
Besides, I've seen dead bodies rolled out of hotel rooms under bloody sheets every night on the news, since I was born. And it'll still be that way. Famous starlet showing her snatch getting out of an Escalade. It's acceptable to be bombarded with otherwise reprehensible imagery, so long as it's not a game or movie.
[quote]

None of that should be seen by a child in my opinion, there´s nothing to gain from that but it can destroy quite a bit in a child´s mind.


Well, I just describe how I percept the world. Being influenced by SO much information all the time is not a very good thing to begin with. Now imagine a lot of that information is violence-themed...can´t have any positive effect on half-developed minds. I don´t think that has anything to do with my generation or the younger generation, it feels like the wind is getting rougher in these past years if that makes any sense in english.

I don´t think I really understand what you mean by that.
Playing a lot of games gives you a shitload of pop-culture-reference material, a lot of inside-jokes and some gamer-friends but if you mean something different, I don´t know what you mean I´m afraid

Depends. There are things that people of a certain age simply shouldn´t do or see, it´s really that simple. You don´t show splatter-movies to a 5 year old, you don´t give a 10 year old hardcore porn, you don´t let a kid drink alcohol, things like these. I´m not talking about a few months in age difference or something, I´m talking about years.

I agree that the whole debate about violence in games and how it influences the players is overexaggereting things but still, a kid shouldn´t play things like Gears or Condemned simply because it´s (in most cases) too early for things like that.


Hope that makes sense to you guys, my english is kinda leaving me every now and then :\

Don't worry about your English, man. It's excellent. And that second bit was just an aside, going along with the whole obsession theme. We make friends through our interests, then they transcend those interests, if they're good friends. If not, then... they're single-purpose friends. I mean, not someone who's like your best friend. Most of the friends I have, I've met through video games, one way or another.

And it appears we will disagree forever on how to raise a kid. Thankfully, you don't have to raise mine and I don't have to yours. That's what makes the world an amazing place with all sorts of debate and thought, n'est pas?

I don't believe it matters what a child is exposed to. I'm a pretty good example, I guess. I've seen a number of dead guys in my day. (I have a pretty good joke about my uncle - "My uncle's favorite candy bar was those Whatchamacallit bars, yeh. But he can't have them anymore." "Why not?" "Because he shot himself.")

I don't think it matters, to expose a spongey mind to something. Logically, that'd be the best time to teach them about something, since kids have a better grasp of consequences the younger they are. And don't anyone twist that around to make me seem okay with child abuse and shit like that. We can split hairs all day about what abuse is, too - I'm more than ready to argue semantics. I think what's more damaging to a kid is to say they can't do something. That certain things are... verboten. (;)) I was never limited artificially by my parents. Even my father, whom is a complete asshole. I found what I was good at and what my limits were. I think it's child abuse to tell a kid that they can't be wrong, that there's no such thing as a mistake, and that everyone has to get a medal.

In the end, it's all parenting. Let people legislate rights away and pawn off responsibility? If you advance that, then you're a cunt. I hate you from the bottom of my heart and I hope nothing but the worst for you, because you're less than nothing.

Not that I'm aiming my vitriol at you, Ox. You seem to be a perceptive fellow. If you believe in such things, then I'm sorry. :\

Oh we do seem to agree on that first paragraph. Of course I´d tell my kid it´s...verboten ;) to play on a construction site for example but at the same time I know it will run around there anyway. Just because I don´t want my kid to do something officially it doesn´t mean that I´ll go yell at it because it just because it behaved like a kid. It´s just growing up, it makes mistakes, it HAS to make mistakes, has to test out certain limits, that´s only natural, otherwise it will most likely have problems later on. One reason why I don´t like overly protective parents and uber-shelterd kids. Even their immunesystems suffer because of such behavior.

And I never said anything about giving up responsibility, as a parent, YOU´RE the one responsible for your kid, not the state, not the community, the family is, we agree on that as well it seems. What I think is okay is to prevent kids getting things not suitable for their age on their own. If your parents are cool with you playing or watching something, it´s their responsibility again. Can be good parenting, can be bad parenting, it all depends on the parents, the kids and the situation.

But Store-Clerks selling...lets say Prototype...selling that to kids? Not cool in my opinion. Ot the Yakuza-Series. Too adult-themed for kids. Again, it´s the parent´s responsibility to do the right thing for their kid. There´s almost no greater parenting-crime than letting the TV or the internet do the education of your kid. I hate people that just "park" their kids in front of the thing and then wander off. Irresponsible, but I think we both agree on that?

For example of my argument Fathom, compare Mortal Kombat from our adolescence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyIK_Vnbl4) with the remake of Mortal Kombat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz_vrbUCCvg).

Growing up playing Mature games and rated R movies is never a good thing. I ended up having to be my own censor because my mom was at work, taking care of the family. I played Doom, but I refused to play Quake when I was young, purely because Quake was much more realistic (and scary at the time).

Comparing violence and sex in media from the early 90's to now is as ridiculous as the 80's to 90's. Case in point, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWa9kTeLAGU) and Splatterhouse 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnv10...eature=related)

I actually had the misfortune of seeing a man murdered in the street at the age of 8 as well. Mature content needs to be for adults, not children.

I agree wholeheartedly. All I want to see is that children will not be able to get their hands on inappropriate content without consent from their parents.

There is no issue of rights or free speech in the actual bill though. All it's trying to do is keep ultra-violent games from kids. They do the same thing with porn. Who's really opposed to that?

You mean you thought Quake was more realistic when you were a kid and didn't know any better, right? Because that's a game where you travel to other dimensions and shoot monsters with an automatic nailgun.

Well, people who don't consider video games and porno to be analogous, for one.


I'm against it because I recognize the bill for what it is: a cynical ploy by politicians who want to distract from the fact that the state has gone bankrupt under their watch. They just need a quick moral panic fix to scare people into reelecting them. Once the elections are over, this issue will disappear. Just you wait.

The other reason I'm against it is because it's completely unnecessary. It has never been easier for a parent to stop their kids from playing inappropriate games than it is right now: Every game has a label and a brief content description on the front and back cover. Each one of those labels contains a URL where you can go to learn more about what's in a certain title. Video and screenshots of any game can be Googled from your mobile phone. And even if all that fails, even if you steadfastly refuse to expend an ounce of effort trying to learn about the media your kids consume, you can use the parental controls on any modern console to block out M-rated games automatically. In short, if your kids can play games you don't want them playing at home, it's on you.

Finally, I don't want law enforcement spending even a moment of their time on this. The idea that you could be working at Best Buy one day, then find yourself fired because you accidentally sold a copy of GoW3 to little Johnny and his holy roller mother threw a fit... that's just pathetic.


But I know all of this is mostly moot because the bill will just be shot down as being unconstitutional, just as it was when they tried it in Illinois, and just as it was when they tried it here years ago.

I didn't even think of that, Boogie. I'm not up on California politics in general. Good call. It's like the bunch of health initiatives they're doing in New York, (taxing soft drinks (which fortunately got shot down), forbidding smoking in public parks or beaches), coz they need to fine more people and get some cash going.

I wouldn't say that's so much censoring as not doing something coz it scares the shit out of you. I still won't watch the Dracula with Gary Oldman, because it frightened me so. I don't think it's pornographic or overtly violent, i.e. any more than is needed for a Dracula tale. It's just frightening and I didn't want to see it. If a game scares my kid, I'm not gonna make him play it against his will.

But it's about controlling information, in a broad sense. I'm opposed to that. And yeah, games like Doom and even Grand Theft Auto are vastly different compared to pornography. Pornography is easier to get for free when you're a kid, so I don't hope to be able to control my kid's sexuality. Creepy. I hope for them to be well-rounded and realize their potential, as a human.

And we get into more problems when we, as voters, have to elect representatives who can dictate exactly what violence is, whether it is necessary to a narrative, acceptability, and so on.

There's a bigger picture, to, because this law could get on the books simply because of the bankrupt state, but stay on long into prosperity, should it ever return. Then, some douche politician or DA with an axe to grind will use it to hurt people.

Personally, if my kid's got the money, I'm gonna buy whatever video game they want.

lol, I meant that the 3D graphics in Quake were more realistic than the sprites in Doom.

I thought that employees could be fired from their jobs for selling anything with any sort of parental advisory to kids already. I do agree that this is just a simple election distraction, but the issue has been around for years. This issue really makes no difference for adults whatsoever, but kids may be put off that they can't purchase an M rated game with a 17 year old anymore.

I highly doubt that law enforcement would get involved anyway. Budget cuts and lethargy have besieged our police for the past two years. How many of them are willing to go arrest some sales clerk at Best Buy or Gamestop.

I do think its odd that we, as Americans feel that porno is more harmful than interactive ultra-violence though. I'm comparing both of the mediums on premise, not actual content though. Videogames have been increasingly filled with more and more violence, blood, gore, sex, and nudity (all of which are inappropriate for kids). Porno is just filled with sex and nudity (to my knowledge, trust me, I don't wanna know if it gets worse than that.) Look at it objectively and tell me that you can't understand the argument of people who have never even played a game. I actually do get where they are coming from, even if they have gone about it in the wrong way over the years.

By themselves? None. However, if some concerned parent calls and says some clerk broke the law by selling a game to her kid...


Okay: the premise of pornography is to present the viewer with sexually arousing imagery so as to stimulate sexual activity, either masturbatory or with partner(s).

The premise of video games is to give the player a worthwhile source of interactive entertainment. No jacking.

In short, just because artists in Japan like to depict the ladies of Soul Calibur in compromising situations does not mean games and porno are comparable.


I have no trouble understanding their arguments, and where they're coming from. The problem is, like you said, they've never played a game. They don't know what they are talking about because any research they do is superficial at best. That's why the people who talk out of their asses on the issue are mocked so relentlessly, like that author who went on Fox News to complain about sex in Mass Effect, then laughingly admitted to never having played the game or even seen the footage she was upset about. By the way, she recanted only after her books were voted down to nothing on Amazon by people using that same logic of "I don't need to know about something to have an opinion on it".

If the law were to go into effect, very little would change. A couple kids might be slightly inconvenienced, but the rest will just get their parents to buy them the games the same way they already are. And again, the parents will not make the connection because it's always someone else's fault. When that happens, they'll dream up some new, more restrictive piece of legislation that will also fail to achieve its intended result, and the cycle will continue.

The real problem is about half the people in the world are not fit to be parents and should be neutered from the get go, we have so many people in the neighboring city who believe another child is another pay raise and they are the same who plunk their assets in front of a screen be it pc or tv and let it do the parenting, I agree with OxBlood on that one but you have all made great points whether we agree or not especially Fathom pointing out that we all raise our own kids and thank god (or whoever you may look to) for that because your all pretty twisted. And Im sure ill warp my kid in one way or another.

I'm sure that there has been plenty of jacking to games lol. People will jack to anything. I once had a coworker get fired for jacking off in the middle of a men's restroom.

I do really hope that at least if a law like that one gets passed, it will shift the blame completely to the parents and the child, not the game company. If a child gets hold of MK and decides to try Kung Lao's finisher on one of his classmates, technically it would be felony child endangerment and possibly neglect for giving the kid the damn game.

The thing is, if the law doesn't penalize retailers AND provide consequences for parents who buy those games for their kids, it will ultimately fail and be a huge waste of taxpayer money. As it stands now, that's how all these laws are written, and so they are doomed before they have even begun. Also, if a child does try Kung Lao's finishing move, two things will happen: he'll get detention for bopping a classmate with a hat, and everyone will laugh at him for pretending to be Oddjob.

The question to ask here is why is this legislation necessary? Proponents would tell you it's because violent games are bad for our children, but there has yet to be any definitive evidence showing that such games cause violent behavior. Because of that, it's really not practical to enact this kind of ineffective legislation "just to be safe".


Also, I'm moving these posts to the arguing thread.

Part of me wants stricter enforcement on the age restrictions so that xbox live isn't always filled with annoying little shits, but I really don't think we're going to see a bunch of little psychopaths emerging simply because they played some violent games or watched some violent movies.

My first R-rated movie was Terminator; I saw that when I was 5. I don't think my parents ever kept me from playing any kind of game, and I had no problems as a result of that. Shit, some of my earliest memories are of playing Wolfenstein and Doom. Most of us grew up playing and watching pretty much whatever we wanted, and we're fine. To be honest, I find the people that were really restricted to be socially awkward and a bit "off" much more frequently than those of us who have grown up with more exposure to the entertainment world.

Seriously, how hard is it to sit your kid down and tell him that what he's watching/playing isn't real, and all of the life lessons that he already knows (such as "don't stab people") still apply.

:domo

Apparently, it's harder than trying to get the entire world to only put out the types of media that you consider acceptable to show your children.

For some reason I feel that back in the day when people killed their own food, kids were exposed to a lot more real violence. Strange that society kept on going. Hell, kids hunt for sport with the parents now. I don't see anyone worrying about how actually killing animals for fun affects youth. You'd think that that would have more of an effect than shooting fake guys on TV.

Of course there isn't any causal relationship between hunting and being a lawless psychopath much the same way there is no relationship between playing Doom and school shootings.

I'm quite happy to generalise and say that rednecks/bogans that hunt are more likely to be crooks than normal people. Also dole bludgers and ignorant of the world they live in.

waheynow

http://www.destructoid.com/mega-man-...--185145.phtml

If I were a Capcom exec, I probably wouldn't have greenlighted the sequel, to be honest. Hell, the only way a third game even had a chance was if something like the 3DS came out. The first two games haven't aged well, and were pretty flawed even back then, and sales showed it. Here's hoping this one is better now that Capcom has a better grasp on how to develop 3D games.

I was looking for a copy of the second until I remembered it was fucking expensive. Then I downloaded a copy and found that it's still excellent.

*shrug* We'll have to agree to disagree.

Know what really bothers me though? So many goddamn remakes and ports for the system. Star Fox 64, Ocarina of Time, MGS3, Super Street Fighter 4, Tales of the Abyss. I love those games but $300 is a lot to spend on games I already own!

Speaking of which, I wonder how much the carts are gonna be. I'm thinking somewhere upwards of $40.

So after the new TF2 update I can't connect to any servers at all, it just stalls at either "Parsing Server Info" or "Sending Client Info"

The only ones I actually can connect to are disconnected from Steam or crash immediately with the Vertex Buffer bullshit

Goddamnit Valve, is it too much to ask that you don't break your game harder with every single patch

Sounds like they're getting tips from Funcom.

I'm gonna jump into that violent video game argument up there.

I think my problem with the whole thing is the assumption that interactivity makes video games somehow more real but in my opinion video games are probably farther from reality, and therefore less of an influence on our actions, than any other medium. Movies are probably the ones closest to reality or at least what we perceive as reality.

Video game gore at its very best is still not very realistic. Dougclayton posted a video of Johnny Cage being cut vertically in half which looked pretty good; except his guts don't spill out, you don't see his dick flopping around even though his pants have also been cut in half (in fact his pants should slide right off), he splurts blobs of blood rather than bleeds it, his dead arms don't hang like dead arms should, his response to being cut in half is a mild aughhh and most important, even though we just watched Johnny die it's probably unlikely he'll become unplayable and we'll never see him again.

It's not that I don't understand people decrying all this violent imagery, I just don't think the violence in video games is somehow more significant than the violence in other media, it's probably less significant in fact. Can Kratos eviscerating mystical centaurs really compare to those horrible Saw movies where ordinary people are brutalized for crap reasons? I have played only one game in my life where the violence upset me and that was Chiller for the NES, that shit was fucked up.