Messages

Careful, DG - that last sentence is easy to misread and interpret like, "in another 10 or twenty years we will all be killing ourselves following the liberating example of this young man".

Hehehe, just so there's no confusion from others I was making a comparison between games and music. Games crossing the line between "violent fun" or "social commentary", and music crossing the lines between "filth" and "liberation".

DS: Aye, that's also exactly what happened with Columbine.

Redrum: I think what I was trying to say in my last post was that parents should take a little more interest in the games their kids are playing. That way they can see if their kids are obsessed and perhaps convince them to try something else. Like go outside and play with other kids. Or even take their kids on an outing. Also, if they keep tabs on their kid's gaming playing, they can educate their children a little better on the difference between computer game violence and real life violence. Because I do think adults recognise the social commentary value, but I don't think kids do. And I feel that the role of a parent is to take part in educating their kids on society.

Nellie: That's interesting. I must have misread the article. That puts a different spin on the case. But I'm still interested in the attacker's parents -- what kind of people were they? Did they take an active interest in their son's life? The article doesn't mention it.

In regards to your thoughts on satire, I also think that's one of the pitfalls of combining entertainment and social commentary.  It's also a blessing because it's difficult to make something clever that's also accessible to mass audiences. Let me put in this way: I'd prefer to play a game like GTA where the social commentary and satire exists as opposed to any numer of similar games without such satire.



Relating this all back to my theory, it's ironic we're all discussing this. I think several decades ago, theorists would have had a similar discussion  about Elvis shaking his privates on national TV (a discussion along the lines of "is it filth or liberal expression?")

I think PB is a marvel of a game, expecially for a game that is mostly the work of one man. The graphics never bothered me, but then again I've never been a huge advocate of "a game must have brilliant graphics". I think PB has suitable gfx for the type of game. Chrille said he wanted to emulated games like Manhunter and Police Quest. I think he's done a brillo job in all areas.

As for LV, the graphics never bothered me. For all Phil's shortcomings with LV's graphics, he compensated with a fantastic sense of humour. And I must note that the graphics got better through each game in the series (LV2 and LV3 Demo). I think this shows that Phil's graphic abilities have developed immensely.

Yes, I think parents expect too much from TV and computers. They expect such things to be a cheap form of babysitting; as long as the kids are watching TV or playing a computer game in their spare time, they're staying out of trouble. But one child snaps after playing a computer game and then bludgens a schoolmate, the parents blame the game. Yet, there so many other things that could be at fault: What about the mindset of the child? Why about the time parents spend with their kids? What about outside influences, such as schoolyard bullying (such was the case with the Columbine kids)?

There's a condition I'm learning about called 'Hikikomori', which is a social anxiety condition that happens only in Japan. What happens is young adults, mainly male, retreat from scoiety and spend years staying within the confines of their rooms. Most of the time while they stay there, they play video games. It affects nealr 1.2 million people in Japan. There was a BCC doco about it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2334893.stm) which linked the condition to things such as pressures and problems at school, lack of communication within the family (and with people as a whole), traditional values, etc. One aspect I found fascination was that kids today (and this isn't just in Japan) interface with a whole new range of technology. Instead of developing interpersonal skills with other people (especially their families), they play video games. And this is what I think has happened (and not only in Japan). I think our idea of family interaction has changed dramatically and this is causing problems for youth.

So, yes, I agree. I think that many parents don't want to take responsiblity for bringing up their kids. Let them stay placid in front of a computer game or a TV show, and when they snap we'll just blame the game or TV show.

And referring to the copycat Manhunt murder, I really question the mother's comments. She said her son was obsessed with the game. Okay, but why did he have such an obsession with the game? Why not a more healthy obsession with something like Beanie Bears? For example:



More to the point, how did she feel knowing he was obsessed with a game that's rated 18+ yet he was only 17? What was she doing to help his obsession? Did she try and stop him, or at least talk to him? I don't think I'kll ever know the answers to my questions here because nothing is mentioned about this in the CNN article.  But from the sounds of the article, I felt she didn't really do much to help because she thought everything was all okay with her son. I do have a feeling that she could have done more to help the obsession.

Tsk! Those damn Croatians! They always think they're better than everyone else, what with their rebel threads and handballs skills!Ã, 

We can use the old:
In every joke there is a little truth.

And don't worry DG, i recognized the sarcastic, tho' clear alert to the forum rules.

Don't worry about it. It's no big deal. I was just making a little joke. I should have added something at the end like a smiley or this:

* DGMacphee shakes his fist at those damn Croations!

Busted anyone?

Busted aren't really as edgy as Linkin Park et al try to be, but you're on the right track -- that whole manufactured band idea.

It's an interesting comparison. It's kinda like you get a game come out that breaks the mold, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Now the bandwagon just seems to be that violent games get the punters. It's just a continuous line of clone games, as it were. But rather than 'cloning' the parts of the game which made it good, they're just focusing on the violence aspect. Does this make any sense?

It sure does makes sense. I think about the violent games I like, and I like them not just because they're violent but because there's something about the violence that really separates them from other games that are just violent for the sake of being violent. I like games like Hitman, Deus Ex, GTA, Duke Nukem 3D, etc. All are pretty violent, but I think the violence serves a purpose and gives all of them substance.

DGMacphee,

Your theory is quite interesting, and I can see how it applies to some games. However there are still going to be lots of games that are just out to make money. It's like: "Ooh look, games where you kill people make money, lets make some of those."

Interesting. I wonder if games like that can be equated to "boy band rock" i.e. rock bands that seem edgy, but are manufactured in the same way as the Backstreet Boys or N'Sync (Linkin Park and Limp Biscuit spring to mind).

Adios Layaboot. You're jetting-off today!

Remo's article has really got me thinking. I have a new theory about all this and I want to write an article about it too. Tell me what you think about it.

My theory goes along like this: It used to be music stars and filmmakers that cause controvery and make social statements. Now, computer games are starting to replace them by doing the same sort of thing.

For example, if you trace some of the history of rock and roll, you'll see figures such as Bob Dylan and Marilyn Manson who are controversial icons, especially in the way they present themselves and through the songs they sing. Computer games are now doing this, and even more so than music or movies.

And I think the relationship of such is strong, especially with the Columbine massacre. A lot of people blamed our violent media after it happened. Marilyn Manson was blamed. 'The Basketball Diaries' was blamed. And Doom was blamed. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/28/dark.culture/)

However, controversial cultural figures in music are few and far betwen. I think the last big controversial figure was Eminem, and he was controversial two or three years ago. And films haven't had a great many of controversial figures over the last decade, although recently a re-emergence has begun with films like 'The Passion of The Christ', Michael Moore's documentaries, and the South Park guys.

However, it seems more and more games are making similar social statements, more so than films and music. It seems that games and gamemakers are replacing rocks god and filmmakers as our cultural icons. Even Rockstar's name is little ironic when I think about it in this light.

Also, I was on the train the other night and overheard a woman in her 30s/40s talking to some people about her son playing GTA. She said it was awful because you could beat people up or play as a pimp. I was about to turn to her and say, "But it's just a reflection/satire of society. Do you consider our society awful cause people beat each other up or cause there are pimps on the streets?". But then I realised her generation probably doesn't understand this relationship. She sees a game as a game rather than a statement. But it's just the same as her parents not understanding the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix. In her day, her parents probably saw rock music as loud, repetitive noise whereas she saw it as liberating.

I would like to research this more and fild out how many games have spark controversy compared to films and music that have sparked controversy over the last decade or so.

But what does everyone here think about this theory? Is it plausible or am I talking crap?

It must be true if you read it somewhere!

That Eric is going way too far here... I'll stick to Feurstein 98 as long as the cartridge is intact.

I once met Bob Ellis, who is one of Australia's most famous filmmakers (and political writers). He's made a lot of films and won many awards for them. He said everything you need to know about screenwriting can be taught in nearly two hours.

Tsk! Those damn Croatians! They always think they're better than everyone else, what with their rebel threads and handballs skills! 

I know a decent program. It's called 'Microsoft Word'. What you do is  make macros for the different dialogue and action sections.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how the world is run?

No, there are a great number of industries that have other forms of regulation than what is basically "self-regulation". For example, some industries conform to government regulation instead of self-regulation, like doctors and dentists.

Since Internet Privacy is a relatively "new" issue for governments, there isn't much out there to regulate marketing companies. In Australia, there's the Spam Act and certain parts of the Privacy Act. But these acts are useless because the Internet is an international medium. It's difficult to apply Australian law in an international context. Very few have tried and succeeded. Only one springs to mind.

Well.. You've been accusing him of posting spam... As if he had some evil intent on doing it.. Like he worked for the damn company or something.

It is a sketchy plan, I give you that.. But honestly I think this just got blown way out of proportion. The internet is not some big chomping machine out to get you. It's like saying everyone in New York is going to gang-rape you or mug you.

Firstly, I accused him of posting spam because he did post spam. I'm not being mean or attacking him. I'm stating the obvious, and I've shown why. I didn't think he had an evil intent in doing so, so I'd be happy if you didn't say I did. I pointed it out and said, "We don't appreciate you doing this. Look at our rules."

Secondly, the internet IS a big machine -- It is a series of networks. But you're probably talking more about internet marketing companies. Well, if you are, they work in a machine-like way in our society. If you've ever studied up on how all facets of society manufacture our lives into a bland and mediocre centre, you'd understand how such a machine works. Many theorists have said so, and I can direct you to some texts on the subject if you like. But this is really off-topic.

In any case, I never said such a machine was "out to get you". Like I stated three or four times, there is no conspiracy. Everything is spelt out for you. It's not that the machine is out to get you. It's just that a lot of people are lazy in checking it all out and think they can just get something for nothing with no strings attached. Thus, they end up walking blindly into a trap that has a sign that says, "Warning: this is a trap!" (Though, the sign is printed in very small letters most of the time)

All I did was point out how it all worked so a) people could understand, and b) show that what was first posted in this thread was spam, so no one got the wrong idea. I don't see why you're getting worked up about it and saying people are "attacking him".

If I said "U R MORON DOANT POAST SPAM HEAR RETAERD!", that would be attacking. But I didn't. I'm not calling him a moron or retard or whatever. I don't even know him. He's probably a very smart guy for all I know. All I know is he posted some spam, and I said "Hey, look at our rules. We don't allow this here", regardless of whether he was asking for help or not.


Now I hope some people here can cool it and discuss this a little more maturely. Like Andail said, the only reason this thread was still here was because the discussion was relevant. I hope we can keep it that way instead of overreacting.

Relik, you're still missing my point, which is this: We are not going to helping you out because what you posted was spam, as I've shown. We are an adventure game community. We're not here to sign up to marketing companies and what not, despite whether there is free stuff on not. People have done so in the past and the mods have go so far to lock their threads. And we want to make sure you (and everyone else) understands that clearly.

Richie, it is basically a machine, and this has been well documented. But like I said, it doesn't even classify as a conspiracy because all the terms and conditions are overtly stated. However, very few people read the fine print because the text size is so small (and it's a long, dull document too). That's why when you see small print in a privacy policy, you know there's something to hide.

As for BBB, I checked them out too. They're basically the same as Truste, as they're funding by the same big businesses that they're supposed to watch over. Basically, they can't do very much if someone launches a complaint on one of their members. So I give them as much legitimacy as Truste.

LGM: We're not attacking. Read again through the last few posts and tell me where we've made attacks. All we've (DM, Andail, myself, etc) all done is said it was either a scam or a marketing ploy and stated why. I think it's important to bring such facts to light, and I don't appreciate being falsely accused of "attacking a poor guy".

Which reminds me, isn't it about that time of year for another Emo Week, just like we did last year?

EDIT: BEHOLD...

... they decide to release a new OS!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1187204.htm

Myst and I divorced in '99. She got the kids and the house. Now I eat baked bean dinners with that cheap floozy Phantasmagoria.

Then can SOMEBODY please explain how in the world i got my free camcorder? Did it magically appear out of my ass? Or did I perhaps get it for signing up for offers withOUT having to refer friends?

That's the thing. You could always create alternate emails and play the game that way, if need be. It was easier a year ago. Now it's not so easy to get free stuff.

There IS such a thing as a free meal (http://www.yesitsfree.com) and things CAN appear to be too good when they're really true (www.freeslide.com pre-June-2004).

Yes, you're right, Richie. You got your camcorder because marketing companies were suddenly feeling very generous and decided to give away free stuff without any catches. Cause, you know, marketing companies (or any company for that matter) don't care about silly things like making profits or attracting a client base. How stupid of me for even questioning such motives of marketing companies.

On a related note, I found this Wired article about Truste: http://www.wired.com/news/exec/0,1370,51624,00.html

Notice how they attack Truste, but not as much the companies behind it (such as AOL) or the companies that adapt the policy. Why? Because the companies behind it (such as AOL) are the ones getting the rubber-stamp for their privacy policies and are basically self-regulating. And any that help such sponsers can easily get the rubberstamp too. Basically, they're a front for large net companies to rubberstamp their own privacy policies, despite clauses allowing spam.

Wired, eBay, AOL, and Gratis all have privacy policies approved by Truste. And all are involved in this iPod "marketing exercise".

Here's a good article on Truste with links regarding their history (especially the Yahoo debacle): http://www.unicom.com/chrome/a/000140.html

And like I said, this isn't a conspiracy theory, nor is it news. This is all contained within each company's privacy policy and this kind of marketing exercise was reported by several publications with time periods ranging from a few months ago to several years ago.

What I'm trying to say is, even if you see a Truste symbol on a privacy policy, it still might not be legit.

T7G's ending was so damn obvious. You can see it a mile off.

Spoiler

Hmmm, you're a mysterious entity called EGO and there's a mysterious guest called Tad. The whole game revolves around "the 7th guest" -- who could it possibly be? You or Tad? It doesn't take the powers of Professor Obvious and Captian Blatant to figure out the ending way before it happens.

[close]