Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (
More info?)
Doug Jacobs wrote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 massivegrooves <massivegrooves@massivegrooves.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, that's a bit hard to show when you've only got a few minutes and
>>>you're dealing with an audience who is largely uneducated about this game
>>>(or games or general) I would suspect that even if the audience knows
>>>about video games, they're probably still thinking about things like "Pac
>>>Man".
>>
>
>>True, but when you are presenting something such as this and the sole
>>focus is that it "TRAINED" him to do this and is a "MURDER
>>SIMULATOR"...well I think it is MORE than necessary to present more
>>about the actual game/gameplay and what all it involves. Instead the
>>unimformed, who likely would be the ones to buy into the BS theory of
>>the defender, would see the footage from a segment like last nights and
>>then think there could be something to it. Far too much of the footage
>>from the game in the segment involved killing cops and that is far from
>>what the game is solely about, or what one does in it. Many people out
>>there may have heard of this game but don't TRULY know what it is and
>>what it is all about. Its reputation is worse than it really is...
>
>
> Well, part of the problem is that you could potentially do this with any
> video game. For instance, if you only showed a non-gamer the Chocobo
> racing part of FFVII, he might conclude that FFVII is a bad game because
> it encourages horse racing/gambling - even though anyone who's actually
> played FFVII knows that it's an entirely skippable part of the game.
>
> Unfortunatly, both perspectives are correct. The fact that FFVII isn't a
> gambling simulator doesn't take away the fact that it does include a horse
> racing mini-game. Whether or not you have to participate in such behavior
> isn't the point. I do agree that 60 Minutes should have given a better
> overview of the game, rather than focusing on that one feature - not that
> that would have helped a whole lot, since the majority of the game is -
> let's face it - playing sociopathic violent criminal.
True, you could. In this instance though I think it was really necessary
to do...also would have made the kids defender look like a bigger moron
than he already does
😉
>
>>>Did they ever at any time ask the parents if they knew their kids were
>>>playing a "M" game? If not, then they did a big disservice. That alone
>>>would have at least put some of the onus on the parents, instead of just
>>>blaming the video games for violent kids.
>>>
>>
>
>>I don't recall that happening in the segment, may have but doesn't
>>spring to mind that they did. Lack of discussion of the M rating and
>>what it pertains to in this title and also the ESRB and rating
>>guidelines is big mess up when presenting something like this. Only
>>would have took a minute or two max to get that in if done right.
>
>
> Yeah, big screw-up on the part of 60 Minutes. It's annoying that more
> people aren't aware - or just don't care - about the rating system. It's
> a classic example of leading a horse to water, but not being able to make
> him drink. Even though there is a rating system, and (at least in my
> area) there are large prominent signs posted in every game ailse that
> describe what the ratings mean, I still see adults just buying whatever
> game their kid hands them without so much as glancing at the box, or even
> asking the kid what the game's about. Otherwise, the impression painted
> by these alarmists is that there are no controls in the game industry, and
> that companies are intentionally making "kiddie games" about murder.
>
I hear ya...same thing around these parts as well. See it all the time,
and when a parent does look at the ratings or refuses a game due to them
it is a rarity. Why game ratings don't get paid attention to is really
beyond me.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram