LET'S ARGUE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES

[Fathom Zero]

wahahaha. If they could spin their case, I'm sure they'd have a valid argument.

I dunno. I'm really bummed about it, because it was looking cool, like something different that no one had really tried before. I was more surprised when people were attacking it and EA was backing it. I thought they had balls. But I guess that people are too emasculated nowadays and back down because someone somewhere might be offended by some thing.

Well, I do know dead soldiers, not that it counts much for me. Not really anybody in my family or anything, but enough to have an impact. If the game hits close to home, it should. War's fucked up. It's not like Modern Warfare 2: The Action Movie where every enemy is a faceless Eastern European. They had a chance to be a little more topical by having the Taliban in the game like that, and they just fucked it up.

I'm too pessimistic, I think.

[Phoenix Gamma]

I'm pissed that they backed down because it sends a message saying the industry will bend over if you yell at it long enough. I dunno if I agree with the content because I never touched that series, but I support the first amendment and creative freedom, and no one's forced to play it.

At least the publicity would have helped them be noticed. Call of Duty casts a shadow over that franchise now.

[Dimnos]

I understand why they did it. They are a business and they can't go pissing off consumers to the point of losing sales. If you were going to buy the game with the Taliban in it, you will still probably buy the game without it. By keeping them in they would be cutting out sales for all the kids whos parents give a crap about this kind of thing.

However what they should have done was announcethat the Taliban would no longer be in the game but would be replaced by a fictional terrorist group called the Nabilat.

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by Dimnos

I understand why they did it. They are a business and they can't go pissing off consumers to the point of losing sales.

Then why did they do it in the first place? You can't tell me that there is no one at the publisher or the dev who understood that there might be some people offended that they used "Taliban" in their game.

If you were going to buy the game with the Taliban in it, you will still probably buy the game without it. By keeping them in they would be cutting out sales for all the kids whos parents give a crap about this kind of thing.

Parents can't even be bothered to check the warning label on a game to see if it has lots of violence. What are the chances that they'll know that some of the enemies in a multiplayer game are called "Taliban"?


What I hate about this whole scenario is that it's making me want to defend what was so clearly a publicity stunt on the part of EA. Just as "No Russian" garnered tons of publicity for MW2 and "Bad Babysitter" garnered tons of publicity for Dante's Inferno, calling their multiplayer skins "Taliban" has generated new interest in MoH.

I'm worried about the same thing that Phoenix mentioned: that this stupid stunt and the retraction that followed will embolden all the special interest groups out there with the message that if they whine hard enough and loud enough, they too can have their will imposed on the industry.

Thanks a lot, EA, you sacks of shit.



And yes, I know MW2 is Activision, not EA.

[MLE]

*No relation

[Fathom Zero]

People's tender sensibilities? Violence?

[The Doctor]

What happened to the days when games like Bionic Commando was chalk full of Nazi references....of course the American version did have all that removed...so I guess there was no good old days.

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by The Doctor

What happened to the days when games like Bionic Commando was chalk full of Nazi references....of course the American version did have all that removed...so I guess there was no good old days.

The difference here is that Nazis are and were a thing of the past. Where the Taliban are currently killing peoples kids.

[Zhukov]

Yeah but if you read some comics from the 40s then you'll see plenty of Nazis getting blown to pieces. AIIIIIII!!!

[Dr. Boogie]

Ah, but they did leave in the ultra-obvious headshot. Along with the surprisingly graphic head explosion.

[The Doctor]

Very true and even at a young age I felt that black bird insignia on the red back drop looked a tad ominous.

[Phoenix Gamma]

Wolfenstein 3D had straight up Robo Hitler. So all the good ol' days were back in 1992

[Zomboid]

Correct. Captain America and Namor fought the war on land and the sea. If I'm remembering my history correctly, we sent in Wolverine to help out with some key operations.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Originally Posted by Zomboid

Correct. Captain America and Namor fought the war on land and the sea. If I'm remembering my history correctly, we sent in Wolverine to help out with some key operations.

I had to do a double take when you said "we sent in wolverine".

[Tadao]

So I have Silent Hill 1 and 2 on my computer. 1 wasn't made for the computer and it plays like shit, also the graphics are way old. Is it worth playing 1 or should I just move on to 2?

[The Doctor]

Originally Posted by Tadao

So I have Silent Hill 1 and 2 on my computer. 1 wasn't made for the computer and it plays like shit, also the graphics are way old. Is it worth playing 1 or should I just move on to 2?

I received a copy of one for my computer a few years back, it was painful to play, I would move onto two.

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by Tadao

So I have Silent Hill 1 and 2 on my computer. 1 wasn't made for the computer and it plays like shit, also the graphics are way old. Is it worth playing 1 or should I just move on to 2?

One its a good game and normally worth at least one play through. If it runs like shit though your probably better off skipping it. Two was way better anyway. Probably the best in the series.

[Fathom Zero]

[Guitar Woman]

Silent Hill 1 is the best game in the series. If you don't play it, you're mega-gay.

The computer emulated version runs like shit if you try to put the settings too high; it won't look any better anyway, so just keep the graphic quality down.

[Shadowdancer21b]

I agree it's the best. Especially since they put in things JUST TO SCARE YOU in random places. I also liked the harmless shadow/ghost things. That was a great atmospheric touch.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

I don't remember what the kid things that followed you around were called but we called them chili chitlins.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

T-100 of spambots

[Zhukov]

Ban it............ or not and keep the laughs comin'

[Phoenix Gamma]

So someone's been doing some research: Awhile back, Bobby Kotick said he wanted to charge people a fee to play Call of Duty, and would do it if he could. Later, he said that Activision doesn't get any of Microsoft's XBLA fees even though 60% of the users play CoD.

Microsoft announced the price for fees would go up, effective about a week before Black Ops. Now Kotick is saying Activision gets a "modest portion" of XBLA fees and Activision is suddenly saying they'll never charge CoD fees.

It's been theorized that there's a correlation between Activision, Black Ops, and the price hike. It also confirms that even if you don't play CoD, you're still giving money to Activision if you're paying the higher XBLA fees. Not that "Activision likes money" is fucking news, but still..

I don't own that console because I like machines that don't break, but I'd be pretty pissed if I did. I swear, Kotick needs to be lynched.

[executioneer]

Originally Posted by Phoenix Gamma

I don't own that console because I like machines that don't break

um