Report: Sega Working Closely with ESRB on MadWorld Content
Report: Sega Working Closely with ESRB on MadWorld Content
October 7, 2008
Sega, publisher of the upcoming MadWorld, is working closely with the ESRB on the bloody game's content, according to a report on MTV Multiplayer.
Sega's goal, of course, is to avoid a sales-killing Adults Only rating. It's more or less a given that black-and-white (and red) MadWorld will be tagged with at least an M rating in the United States.
Of the cooperation, MTV Multiplayer's Patrick Klepek writes:
Sega is working closely with the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to ensure the game receives just an M rating, they told me. The ESRB receives new builds on a regular basis and Sega notes their feedback. Sega wants them to feel “part of the process” of developing “MadWorld” and isn’t looking to surprise them...
But don’t let the ESRB’s involvement make you nervous; “MadWorld” is plenty violent right now. It looks like “Sin City” was bathed in a bucket of blood.
As GamePolitics reported in August, Sega is similarly working with the BBFC on smoothing over MadWorld's path to a successful U.K. release. It's unclear, however, whether MadWorld will see release in other violence-sensitive markets, including Japan, Germany and Australia.
Although MadWorld is not scheduled for release until March, the game has already been the subject of at least one call for a ban.
Comments
@ Erik:
"Fuck the ESRB", amirite?
Now you are getting it. What Sega is doing with the ESRB and the BBFC is essentially creative suicide. Just imagine if Van Goh would have worked with his critics who said he was a drunk and a madman. We would be stuck with more boring ass 19th century realism styled works with nothing to set it apart from the rest of the herd.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
But the BBFC and the ESRB (and PEGI - Sega's in touch with them too, don't forget) aren't critics - they're censors. However, I take your point that 19th century art critics wield the same powers as modern day regulatory boards.
So - will you be boycotting this game now? Personally, I still think this smacks of a PR stunt - otherwise they'd keep schtum about involving the various ratings boards.
Actually, the ESRB is not a censor. They are a ratings board. They assign ratings. What Retailers, console manufacturers, publishers and developers do wit hthose ratings is up to each respectively. The ESRB does not control nor dictate the policies of those other organizations.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
Oh come off it - the ESRB know *exactly* what power the AO rating wields. It's true the ESRB can't impose cuts in the same way the BBFC can, but the effect is still the same - just take a look at the USA release of Manhunt 2. And in this particular instance, one would assume that SEGA are altering the contents of Mad World to better fit within the ESRB's guidelines - if that's not cencsorship, wtf is?
Now if we're going to argue semantics on this issue, it'd only be fair to argue the semantics over wheter or not the BBFC is a Government or Independent agency - either way, it matters little. What counts is the way these bodies utilise their powers.
Sure the ESRB knows what will happen to a game that gets an AO rating. But they have no power at all to change that out come. They can tell console manufacturers to allow them, they can tell retailers to sell them, they can tell developers and publishers to make them, but untill all those parties change their stances on AO rated games, the ESRB can do nothing about what happens to an AO rated game.
What do you propose the ESRB do to fix the AO mess beyond what has already been done? As far as I can see, they have done everythig and it is the whining "for the children" policies of Retailers, publishers and console manufacturers that need to change. Not the ESRB.
Also, I should add, the only Reason Sega is working with the ESRB in this case, is because they know Nintendo won't release an AO rated game on the Wii. They also know that Nintendo will not help them in anyway to avoid an AO rating. The yalso know that only the ESRB can give the necessary input needed to avoid an AO rating. If Nintendo would allow AO rated games in the first place, Sega wouldn't need to take these steps.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
I agree with you completely. I agree that the position the ESRB find themselves in is not one of their own choosing, moreover I fully imagine it's something they've done their best to avoid. Neverthless, in all practical terms they hold same level of power and influence as PEGI and/or the BBFC, at least in this particular instance.
It's a sucky situation for them, but in practical terms, that's how things lie. It's therefore not inaccurate to cast them in the role of censor, even if they aren't sanctioned as such by the state.
Actually, I disagree. It is inaccurate to cast them in the role of sensor as they are not the ones censoring. It is accurate to cast Console manufacturers, retailers and publishers as censors.
It would be more accurate to cast the BBFC into the role of censor than the ESRB.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
I agree that it is more accurate to describe the BBFC as a censor than the ESRB by far, however that does not absolve the ESRB of a censorial role in this particular instance.
I consider them more of an advisor role in trying to get Mad World to conform to Nintendo's regulations.
But we are arguing semantics at this point. So I am done.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
Of course I will be boycotting it. Also, if their PR stunt was to make themselves look like sissies, then the stunt worked.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
So because they're censoring the game to avoid retail suicide you're boycotting them?
Sorry but that doesn't seem like a good reason to me.
---------------------------------------------------- God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
Seems like an excellent reason.
There's no reason that AO-rated games shouldn't be allowed on modern consoles. That's what parental controls are for.
While we probably need to send messages to Sega directly, the main issue is about censorship. I (as well the grandparent) disagree that this game should be censored, hence the boycott.
Wouldn't a better boycott be to boycott the platforms that don't allow AO games? IE The 360, PS3, Wii, PSP, and the DS?
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
Nobody is that much of an idealist! At least, no gamer ;)
EDIT: Ack! Ignored the PC market! Ignore me…
PC games can have an AO rating as there is no regulatory body dictating what rating are allowed. The only hurdle there is retailers but that can be easily bypassed with DD.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
A better idea would be to write a letter to Sony Nintendo and Microsoft asking them to allow Ao games on their consoles. Point out that unlike retailers they don't have to worry about poor sales of the game. If you're writing one to Sony remind them of what helped make BetaMax lose.
Although if you want to get money involved somehow I guess the best idea would be to buy more Ao and M rated PC games.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
Yes, a boycott without a campaign is worthless. If you don't tell anyone why you are boycotting, your boycott is in vain.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
"So because they're censoring the game to avoid retail suicide you're boycotting them?"
Yes.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Van Gogh WAS a drunk and a madman - Absinthe will do that to you.
Doubtful - it's far more likely they'd follow Bethesda's move and just create an international 'one-size-fits-all' edited up version.
Ofcourse there is also the chance that no censorship will be applied and that this is just Sega being on the safe side. Bearing in mind that the BBFC have only ever in very rare cases asked for content to be changed (Man hunt II, Carmageddon).
This is just Sega's way of making sure that they dont get stung after development... when they might not have done anyway.
Just because they are working with the ratings boards does not mean that they have changed their design or development...
Consider this: Trey Parker once said that when he appealed the NC-17 rating for Orgazmo(which was turned down), he was only given 3 minutes to present his case. But when he submitted South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut a few years later, the MPAA explained to him which scenes to cut down to get the R rating.
Is Sega's working with the ESRB to ensure an M rating really any different than a movie studio working with the MPAA to ensure an R or even a PG-13 rating?
Back in Black from a forced hiatus by Hurricane Gustav.
*clap clap clap*
Personally, I don't find such censorship problematic or offensive in the slightest (it's not like they're editing a work of science or philosophy) - Erik would disagree, I'm sure.
Of course I would find such censorship problematic. What astounds me is that you don't.
I mean I think that Eminem's music is sleezy, ignorant, verbal garbage. But still I would be angry were he censored. People far too often get in the habit of only protecting the freedom of those things they like, not realizing that they let the predators get too close in their inaction.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I think I share the same position as GusTav2 on this matter. At some point, a society has to draw lines about what is and what is not accceptable in terms of all sorts of things if it is to be coheseive, functional and integrated - be it behaviour, creativity and more besides. These lines usually aren't fixed (even constituations have amendments or a Roe vs Wade to contend with), but they do set temporily-constrained boundaries.
IMHO, so long as freedom of thought is not impinged and the disciplines of science and philosophy are not interfered with, I tend to take the view that one particular generation's taboo is the succsessor's cause celebre. Consequentially, restrictions on something like the cinematic release of the South Park movie, or questionable games such as Manhunt 2, don't really bother me - if they're truly worthwhile, the following generation will make them freely available. For a reference case, see Lady Chatterley's Lover as published by Penguin books.
I understand, Erik, that you are an idealist and therefore view these things in the all-or-nothing terms of a slippery slope. I tend to plump for a more practical, case-by-case view. Believe you me, if it had been GTA IV that had been banned I would have been furious, but a game like Manhunt 2, which brings no interesting social satire or thought-provoking commentary, isn't really worth the objection, IMHO.
Mad World may well prove to be a different case, but so little is known about the game it makes it difficulty to judge. Personally, I think violence has been done to death in videogames (if you'll patrdon the pun) - surely there are more interesting, thought-provoking boundaries to push? Mass Effect, for example, almost provoked an interesting argument about the role and depiction of sex in games. Whilst I'm not suggesting pornography, I do think that this is an area that has yet to be fully explored by games for grown-ups. If the BBFC, PEGI or ESRB (i.e. the liberal ratings boards) were to challenge a game like Mass Effect over sexual content, then I would be sounding the rallying call for gamers to get up in arms!
"if it had been GTA IV that had been banned I would have been furious"
Why? What is so damn important or necessary about "social satire" or "thought-provoking commentary"? It doesn't change what the violence is. You mean to say that you would snub a virtual representation of someone getting their skull bashed with a hammer, but would defend it of the same scene had the murder saying "LOL, Bush Administration" because of some irrelevant social commentary?
Really, if you aren't willing to defend a game like Manhunt 2 then frankly we don't need your help with GTA4. I can at this point only assume you are one of Jack's "thousands of friends" he mentioned in his latest email to Dennis.
To put it even more bluntly: Fuck social commentary.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Oh Erik, just when I thought you were making the effort to be constructive... :'(
And just what would you consider constructive? Furthermore why are you dodging my question about what is so different about shooting a person in the face in Manhunt 2 as compared to GTA4?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
The social commentary of GTAIV is not contained in the violence. It is in the world of GTA. Manhunt had very little context to its world and violence. GTA as far as I can tell has a compelling story and world to explore that makes it worth having. Manhunt does not.
If a game has nothing worth while besides the level of violence, it is not really something you will get a lot of support for.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
"The social commentary of GTAIV is not contained in the violence. It is in the world of GTA. Manhunt had very little context to its world and violence. GTA as far as I can tell has a compelling story and world to explore that makes it worth having. Manhunt does not"
To be quite frank, so what?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Oh, you mean we need to support our opinion with fact? I wasn't aware that was how it worked.
While I agree that any game should be able to be released in what ever form the creator wants it, I cannot believe that every game will or should get the same level of mainstream support as any other. That is not how the world works. I have stated in the past, that Manhunt 2 should have been released unedited in all regions. I did not however say, that I would buy the game. I actually find such games disgusting and quite juvenile. So I don't play them.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
I never said that Manhunt 2 is worth playing. But social commentary shouldn't be a deciding factor in whether or not a game should be banned or not.
To be quite honest I wish that all games would completely abandon that heavy handed social commentary crap. I play to relax, if I wanted to torment myself with current goings on I would watch Cspan.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I agree, the GTA series is in big danger of disappearing up it's own arsehole as it starts taking itself increasingly more serious as the 'bastion of interactive social commentary'.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Not everyone shares your opinion. Many people like social commentary. But not all social commentary is equal. Good social commentary blends itself seemlessly into the narrative and the audience does not realize it is there if they are not looking for it.
Shows like the Simpsons and Dinosaurs were excellent examples of social commentary.
But I must ask, who said that social commentary was the deciding factor in whether a game gets banned or not?
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
Well, StickBoy for a start. Eric was saying that in response to what he said.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
"But I must ask, who said that social commentary was the deciding factor in whether a game gets banned or not?"
Stickboy, a few posts up.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Hang on a minute - I never said that all games without social commentary should be banned, so please don't put words in my mouth.What I said is that I, personally, don't find games like Manhunt 2 to be worth defending. I never said I wanted them banned!
What I meant to imply is that I do think some games carry greater intrinsic social worth and artistic value than others. In this case, I would state that GTA IV is a more worthy game than MH2 as measured by my own, personal yardstick. I'm no authority and your mileage may vary, so to speak.
"I, personally, don't find games like Manhunt 2 to be worth defending. I never said I wanted them banned!"
I don't see the difference.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Fair enough. I've explained myself as clearly as I can - I'm obviously lacking as a communicator.
I didn't like dfending that Virginia Tech rampage game esoecially after the creator's rampage note (even if he did claim it was a parody afterwards) but I still defended it. I have nothing against the concept of making fun of school shootings but it seemed so low quality and like it was nothing but pure shock value (for an example of humorous ways to make fun of school shootings see George Carlin). But yet I still begrudgingly defended it although perhaps not as much as I defended other games.
I do believe that mostly all free speech should be defended whther it be whatever measures the most on your personal yardstick to the sickest dead baby joke you can find (which consequentially measures high on my yardstick because of the amusement it brings to my friends). Heck even the most sickening piece of filth you can find is allright with me so long as it involves consensual adults, is harmless or involves virtual things (or a combination of all three), I'd try to avoid that stuff myself though.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
If this was something on say, public television, that'd be one thing (though even with today's TV filters even that's up in the air), but this is fiction to be enjoyed in one's home.
Based on TV shows and movies, society has acknowledged that violence in the media is acceptable. So why would it not be acceptable on a different platform?
It just comes down to Nintendo wanting to protect it's image. They're well within their rights to not allow AO-rated games on their console, no matter how much I disagree with it. Just means that my disagreement equals less dollars for Sega and Nintendo.
That's an excellent point and may lead me to rethink my position completely!
GusTav2 - if you're reading this, what would you say in response to the position that certain questionable/objectionable content is privately sold for personal possession, rather than for public broadcast? Should it therefore not be afforded more liberal regulatory measures?
In my view it shouldn't make any difference. There is no such thing as private expresssion, by definition is must be passed on to be an issue. If something is controlled as it is viewed to be harmful the fact it is only shared in a small group doesn't change the nature of the harm, just its extent.
The different treatment of broadcast media is more to do with the manner of delivery, and the way that the contnent is delivered directly without the viewer makng the same active choice to bring the content into their home.
Because you're right Eric. He finds it easier to try and make a personal snarky remark about you then defend the holes in his argument you pointed out.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Actually it was because I needed to catch the bus home. Who's the snarky one now, cockface?
Still you I'm afraid.
------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
*sigh*
Why? What is so damn important or necessary about "social satire" or "thought-provoking commentary"? It doesn't change what the violence is. You mean to say that you would snub a virtual representation of someone getting their skull bashed with a hammer, but would defend it of the same scene had the murder saying "LOL, Bush Administration" because of some irrelevant social commentary?
The importnace of 'commentary', social or otherwise, is vital. The reason that this issue of such import in Western democracies is the importance of free speech and other forms of expression as part of the political process. The nature of the speech, and its position in wider political discourse, is part of the process whereby States decide what speech/expression is protected.
A few examples to show what I mean:
Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowed public space: cleary speech, but not protected speech.
Hate speech from a neo-nazi organisation: arguably objectionable, but protected political speech.
The creation of psuedo-images of child sexual abuse: creative artisit expression, but not protected.
The medium chosen to articluate the speech/expression is not important, what is important is the nature of the speech/expression itself, however it is expressed.
Films like Saw and Hostel regularly feature gore, 'unremitting bleakness', torture and very little to absolutely no plot, sorry, I meant social commentary. But when a game follows the same rules, suddenly it needs to be supressed.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Saw and Hostel have no plot? Actually watch the movies and then comment please.
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
I saw Hostel in the cinema and my mum owns all 4 Saw DVDs so I've seen them. I'll repeat: They have no plot. Learn all about what I have and haven't watched and then comment.
Don't get me wrong, I liked Hostel and the first Saw film, but they are essentially turning into new Friday the 13th franchises.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
So once more, why is shooting someone in the face in Manhunt 2 oh so much of a tragedy that it must be banned, but in GTA4 suddenly its sacred and must be protected? By defending only that that some people deem of some social benefit do people inflate their egos with this insipid pseudo-intellectualism?
This is a pretty simple concept really. If I will defend GTA4 then I will defend Manhunt 2. If I don't defend Manhunt 2 then I will not defend GTA4, or hell, even the penis laden sculpture that is Michelangelo's David.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Social commentary is a means to an end.
You: "We want ultraviolent games and we want them now!"
Society: "Um, no. We don't like that."
You: "OK, what about this one? It has a nice story behind the action."
Society: "Hmm, OK. Hey, is that Samuel L Jackson?"
You: "Yup. Want a go?"
Society: "You know, this is kind of cool."
You: "Told you. Can we play this other game now?"
But in the end its annoying, as even Tolkien has pointed out. And I really don't see the need for it. I ignore such things when deciding what to defend or not to defend. To me, as I have stated, will put forth just as much effort for crap like Manhunt 2 as a masterpiece as a sculpture like David.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
And fair play to you for doing that. Rock on and all that rubbish. But - and I'm breaking the universe here by being on the same page as EZK - campaigning for a society to accept Manhunt when they only barely accept GTA is trying to dam the wrong end of a river.
I suppose I'm just not prepared to defend crap, as you put it. I realise that renders my views highly subjective, but I'm not espousing them as prescription (the ultimate difference between me and a JT/Julian Brazier). How are we to raise the bar for entertainment if we, the consumer, will put up with - defend, even - any old tripe?
As I said above, I'd much rather choose to defend a particular product based on its merits, as judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than take a hardline (almost fundamentalist) stance. But as I've said plenty of times now, I'm not an idealist.
Well when it comes down to it you have to decide if you want freedom of expression or not. And like all things you have to take the bad with the good. Want freedom? Grand. But you have to fortify yourself to be prepared for things such as the KKK being able to present their opinion or crap like Manhunt 2 being made. If you don't want to put up with that, fine, I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
Many soldiers have died in many countries so the people in those countries have the freedom to call them baby killers. Think upon that.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
And we do want freedom of expression. We just also know we're not going to get it right now just by shouting for it. You're not the only guy to have a dream that's worth fighting for. Dreams just take time and effort.
Then choose a side. This supporting stuff like GTA4 but not Manhunt 2 seems rather wishy-washy. The sort of freedom of expression you seem to be touting reminds me sort of those retractable dog leashes. You know the dog thinks it has the freedom to run around wherever it wants, until its master clicks the button and the leash reels in and chokes the mutt. I'm talking about freedom of expression, not just a good amount of running space.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I refuse to subscribe to such a binary world view. In my experience, there is always room for negotiation and, dare I say it… compromise.
The the fishing reel leash it is then?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
If you insist on carrying the analogy to the straw, then allow me to expand on it. We are all on the leash of the society in which we live. The good dog knows what to do to get the treats and improve his life. The dog who chews through his restraints and runs amok probably gets put down.
Ugh - I take your point Matthew, but I dislike either dog. All I'm saying is that I'm happy to think for myself rather than setting rules for myself. I suppose to make the point fit the analogy, sometimes it's good to take the treat, and sometimes it's good to bite through the leash. It just depends on the situation or context :)
But the dog who gets put down at least gets some taste of freedom before hand now doesn't he?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
And then what does society do to its next dog? Gets a stronger leash. We need society to trust that violent games don't turn people into killers. Pushing the envelope too hard hurts that cause, because when a murderer is found to have played Corpse Mutilator IV the press has a freaking field day and we lose our save. By getting milder violent games on the shelves and into everyday media, violent games become just another part of life.
Oh, and no viewpoints are binary because stances and opinions are made up of lots of little substatements. On any given topic you will rarely find two people who either agree *entirely* or disagree *entirely*. They will always have a grey area that they agree on.
If they get a stronger leash, get a stronger dog. This won't be won by pandering to the ENEMIES such as the BBFC or ESRB.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
So the press will demonize video games again. Whoop de do. Wake me up when something new happens. Video games are big business we have the first amendment, games have been declared free speech, it's been ruled repeatedly that the evidence saying games cause harm to children is insufficient. With this in mind what threat do these fear mongering creeps have anyway? It's been said time and again that as time goes by games like all the previous moral panics will become accepted. Corpse Mutilator V now with necrophilia will not change these facts.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
Well they must have some threat if Sega is willingly castrating itself now don't they?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
They're doing this to appease the retailers and Nintendo not the anti gaming clowns.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
I never stated for whom they are castrating themselves for, rather that they are castrating themselves.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
You implied it.
I said those censoring moral majority types are no threat.
You say that they must be some threat because Sega is castrating themselves.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
It ain't about choosing sides, it's about choosing battles. The war to get the general public to accept ultraviolent games is not a winnable one at present. The battle to get them to accept GTA is far easier. First we need a strong foothold in the forested hills of San Andreas.
Here, have some pretention (courtesy of WikiQuote): Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious. The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
For the guy doing Manhunt 2's accounts: There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.
I like this analogy. I do want to tie this to the animal analogies up above.
In nature, herding animals will protect members of their herd that will provide the most future benefit. These are the young and the females. These same herding animals will often leave for dead those that will only drag the herd down and damage it. These are the sick, injured and old.
So when faced with a predator, the herd will protect the young and females while leaving the sick and elderly to be ripped appart by the predators.
As an industry, we need to learn which games and companies are the young or females of the gaming herd. We also need to learn which games and companies are sick and elderly. By learning these key facts, we will be better equipped to grow and eventually over power the predators that attack us.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
But then, I suppose in the idealist's worldview, all animals would be saved? Furthermore, is MH2 - in your opinion - young and female, or sick and old??
My personal opinion is that Manhunt 2 is a 3 legged 80 year-old cancerous antelope. It is best left for dead.
But that is part of the herd mentality. Not every herd member will protect the young and female. Not every herd member will abandon the sick and elderly. But those who support the wrong members will receive more and more injuries and become themselves sick and elderly. Those who support the sick and elderly will be faced with more battles more often than those who suppor the young and female.
Hope that makes sense.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
I don't think Manhunt 2 is a sick or elderly member of the herd. Manhunt 2 is more like the calf who runs around and taunts the predators for fun. It has never really been a useful member of the group and would have been abandoned at a young age for being a liability.
Provocatively adult titles have a place on the pixelly savannah and we want to see them flourish. It's just very ultimately more hassle than it's worth defending those members who make life difficult for everyone else. Nature is cruel.
And I want to play Darwinia now.
Are you basing whether manhunt 2 is sick and elderly based on the quality of the game or the level of violence in it? A really violent game can be really fun.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
A combination of the two, surely. To my mind, each case has to be judged on its own merits.
I still say the anti-gaming crusaders are all bark and no bite ... at least in the U.S. Although even if it seems like the anti-gaming countries ban individual games instead of mass bannings with the exception of Thailand and probably China.
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
"How are we to raise the bar for entertainment if we, the consumer, will put up with - defend, even - any old tripe?"
It's something for everyone, you and others like you may want more quality entertainment but I'm sure lots of people are fine with the quality as is and some people get a kick off of the sickest stuff they can find. Different people will cater to these three groups. If you insist on spending your entertainment dollars on top notch games or theatre and opera go right ahead. Who knows if enough people join you then the quality of that stuff will probably improve. There's enough consumers out there that you don't need to get everyone involved.
Oh and if you could recommend any good games or some great theatre let me know. I really enjoy a good play every now and then. I can also enjoy hockey and saw at the same time (well not literally at the same time, then it gets too confusing as I try to follow the adventures of a psychotic madman trying to tame a bunch of rabid hockey fans through starvation, sleep deprivation and sickening traps).
----------------------------------------------------
God created alcohol so that the Scottish and the Irish could never take over the world. -Chris 'Jedi' Knight
An excellent post. However I was more trying to make the point that we, as consumers, serve a vital role in the free market: to weed out unworthy products from the worthy ones, or producers will not have the incentive to improve their wares (or warez). But I take your point on board 100% and it still applies
^Post of the Day^
If you are into censorship I suppose. The rest of us just shake our heads at such posts.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I thought it was like a screenplay for realpolitik, rather than censorship.
I read it again, still sounds like censorship to me.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
So once more, why is shooting someone in the face in Manhunt 2 oh so much of a tragedy that it must be banned, but in GTA4 suddenly its sacred and must be protected? By defending only that that some people deem of some social benefit do people inflate their egos with this insipid pseudo-intellectualism?
I have never stated that there was any difference between the two. Disagreeing with one part of you view does not mean that I disagree with all of your views.
What I think it is important to realise is that the mere fact that both are games, and that both are violent, does not mean that both are intinsically the same. The manner and tone of the expression is important. Once you recognise that there isn't complete freedom of express yourself in any way you want, at any time, the more difficult question is how do we choose what to protect, and what not to. An understanding of why the freedoms are considered important is one part of that bigger picture.
Nothing is intrisically scared; no medium or person or view. All must be equally liable to control or censorship on the same basis.
oops
"The manner and tone of the expression is important."
I disagree. I don't see the difference between say, GTA4 or