The assault on video games


Missy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't think PETA ever had any kind of credibility. It's an organization of crazies.

And here's the thing. I own 2 very spoiled Beagle mixes. I have written my state representative and state senator in support of an animal-welfare law before the legislature right now. I was outraged by the Michael Vick dogfighting scandal.

But I was killing virtual dogs 20 years ago in the Castlevania series, and today in Resident Evil 4. (just started playing through again today.) I know the difference between pixels on a TV screen and real life. PETA's idiotic letter is nothing more than an attention-grabbing LOOK AT ME moment that does absolutely nothing for animal "rights" or animal welfare. They distract from the real issues, and real animal cruelty, by whining about irrelevancies like a video game and promoting this circus-like atmosphere.

This is why I say PETA is no different from the Westboro Baptist "Church" and that Ingrid Newkirk = Fred Phelps. The WBC pickets funerals because they're attention whores. PETA is exactly the same.

PETA's espouses an extremist, radical ideology that I'm never going to agree with - especially as a cancer survivor who is alive today because of biomedical research. But in cases where they are reasonable - such as campaigns against dog fighting and inhumane conditions for breeding pets - they could garner some support even among those who disagree with them on the more extreme views the organization holds. But PETA doesn't give a **** about animal rights or animal welfare. It's all about getting as much attention as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's the thing. I own 2 very spoiled Beagle mixes.

Don’t forget, PETA aren’t happy about keeping animals as pets either! Unless of course you received your pets from a pound and treat them as equals, then they’re kind of okay with it.

Honestly, I agree with everything you’ve said. They’re an organization that goes to obscene lengths to push an agenda that’s downright insane. It’s a shame that they’re probably the most well known animal rights activists out there.

But really, I don’t think there’s anything you can do to stop them at this point. Ignoring them is the obvious solution, but it’s kind of hard to ignore an organization that does anything it can to get attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its crazy. I'm fine with campaigns to raise the standard of living for animals. I'm fine with them raising awareness of acts of genuine cruelty. Just don't tell me I'm a monster for eating meat, and for fucks sake don't tell me a chicken is my equal. Its not, its a fucking chicken. It exists to be turned into a breadcrumb-covered delight. We are designed to eat meat. Choose not to if you like, but its strictly your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t forget, PETA aren’t happy about keeping animals as pets either!

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk

PETA believes pet ownership is the same as slavery. I'm sure my Beagle/Basset mix would be much better off had she been allowed to remain a stray, instead of picked up by animal control and adopted by me. Even though she was starving.

leave_it_tera.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

"Pediatricians and psychologists have been warning us that violent video games are harmful to children," said Mary Lou Dickerson, a Democratic legislator in Washington state who wrote a law now being challenged in federal court — banning the sale of some violent games to kids. "I'm optimistic that the courts will heed their warnings."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 7 months later...
Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan of Norene, Tenn., shot herself Sunday night after her stepfather left his loaded Smith & Wesson handgun out on a table, Wilson County Sheriff Terry Ashe said.

Cheyenne's mother told police officers that the child was used to playing a shooting game with the Nintendo Wii video game console and likely confused the real gun with the realistic-looking black toy gun, the sheriff said.

"The unfortunate thing is that this Nintendo game called Wii had what looks like a solid black, basically automatic-looking type mechanism that operates the game," he said. "Unfortunately, the stepdad also had a .380 caliber black Smith & Wesson. The child was used to playing the video game."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toddler-dies-mistaking-gun-wii-controller/story?id=10056190

Yep, let's blame the video game. It's all the game's fault. Nintendo is evil.

What? The "father" left his loaded handgun on the kitchen table? Oh, no, that can't be the reason. How dare you suggest a grieving parent is at fault for his child's death? And no, I do not hear the "deliverance" music in the background.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It's all the video game's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the rest of it? At first I thought they were glossing over certain facts, but the article goes on for another page. They even ask a Kotaku writer about realistic gun controllers for the Wii, and he goes on to talk about how hard it is to actually come across one, and that no blame should be put towards Nintendo. It also states pretty clearly that the parents are at fault for leaving a loaded gun in a place where a child could reach it.

I know what you mean though, the fact that the child confused it for a game controller should be a minor footnote, not one of the major points of the article. It is a little crazy that the family let their three year old play with a realistic looking gun attachment to the wii remote, especially when you consider that it does look pretty similar to the father's gun. It's another layer of carelessness and stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of the article was good, and the main focus of the body of the article was gun safety and responsible firearm ownership. They went and got a quote from former Fort Wayne Mayor Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign.

That's fine. My problem is that the headline was pure sensationalism and nothing more. I've seen this before and I know where it's going. It's going to be the fault of the video game industry before this is all over. Color me cynical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An effort to impose fines and even jail time for selling mature games to underage kids has reached Rhode Island's legislature. "The bill won't survive a court challenge, nor should it," says a certain disbarred Florida lawyer.

Yes, when Jack Thompson, the bête noire of the video game culture wars, calls this one a dumper, it truly is time to go back to the drawing board. Which Thompson admits he's helping Rhode Island lawmakers do. But since we raised the question of the bill's constitutionality yesterday, let's have the definitive smackdown on it today. This was a statement from Thompson to Game Politics:

Since 1930, it has been unconstitutional to restrict the sale of entertainment products to anyone based upon a private sector standard, which the ESRB ratings are. There has to be a definition, description of the material and why it is offensive in the statute itself, so that a jury can apply a state/governmental standard, not a private sector rating. The Bill won't survive a court challenge, nor should it.

I actually have litigated these issues. Seems to me you should report the fact that even Jack Thompson knows this one won't fly. Think I'm not going to help the legislature get it right?

Then if that's the case, I don't see how the scrapped Utah legislation of 2009, which he also advised on, could have survived a court challenge, either.

For its part, the Entertainment Software Association says: "This bill is the same as all the other legislative proposals found unconstitutional by numerous federal courts." Pretty wild when you've got the ESA and Jack Thompson going "Yeah, what he said!"

http://kotaku.com/5492331/look-who-says-the-rhode-island-games-legislation-is-unconstitutional

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I'm quickly losing respect for Rodger Ebert. First, he blasted Kick-Ass, and now he's saying video games can never be art.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

In his defense he's twittering a lot of the serious articles that people are sending him that are contrary to his position. Plus its a newer medium with differing requirements to traditional arts, and he's an old man whose education and experiences are rooted in existing artistic establishments. In addition he's not stating they they can't be art, he's saying they aren't right now. Which is a subjective thing really, do you consider a lot of modern major studio films to be art?

Personally I think art is totally subjective. I consider great wrestling to be art due to the emotional response it provokes. Maybe Bride Wars was intended to provoke the same reaction as someone placing a dog turd in a serious art exhibition.

To me all computer games contain examples of art, but relatively few actually encompass the notion in and of themselves. The game as an art rather than just nice graphics or good gameplay. In the same way as an actor can be great in a bad film, or the cinematography can be good when the acting and direction are shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ebert's been saying games aren't art for at least five years now. It's a slipperly slope since even people like Hideo Kojima have gone on record and said he doesn't consider games art either.

I think the main issue is that people automatically associate the term "art" with "good" in their brain; that to call something art is an amazing compliment that must be earned. Art can be horrible, which is why Shadow of the Colossus and Bubsy 3D are both art despite being wildly different in quality. A four year old's drawing is art. Saw movies are art. Nickelback's music is art. Doesn't mean it's good.

And really, people were expecting him to like Kick-Ass? It's not exactly the kind of movie that lends itself to good reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And really, people were expecting him to like Kick-Ass? It's not exactly the kind of movie that lends itself to good reviews.

The film has got really positive reviews from almost every source, the only place I'd heard a bad review until now was from the Mail which thought it was aimed at paedophiles. Its got an 85% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He really, really had an issue with the fact that it was an 11 year old doing all the violence. But honestly, he's been saying stuff like that for ages. It doesn’t help that his reviews can, at times, be rambling, barely coherent messes. I think the articles he writes outside of his movie reviews have been really good though.

The way Ebert has talked about games in the past, it’s pretty much impossible for games to ever become art in his eyes. And that’s fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.