Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is the Game Media Being Oblivious?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-one-attended-the-antarctic-bikini-fashion-show-either dept.

163

MaryAlan writes "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy was this weekend, and almost no one from the game media showed up. In fact, the game industry seems to pretty much be ignoring the whole event. There's an article up on GamesFirst, which attended the summit, that criticizes the mainstream game press pretty hard for not attending. Apparently only one game journalist showed up. From the article: 'The video game media owes it to our readers to come to events like this and listen, come here and think, and come here and base our editorials on the reality of what's being said instead of an interpretation of the talking points that are published afterwords. Too many of the people discussing these issues in forums do so based on the works of the game media, and too few in the gaming media are spending the time to make it justified.'"

cancel ×

163 comments

Guess they didn't learn (4, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584654)

From the online poker sites' experiment with passively-watching our legislators do their thing.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16584770)

No, there are no real reporters in the game media. Those working in the game media are either in the pockets of the game publishers, or themselves without personal interest or experience in covering events where they would apply reportorial tradecraft (i.e., interviewing people they do not know). It's laziness, inexperience, and graft.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (5, Funny)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584878)

No, there are no real reporters in the game media.
The word "game" in this sentence is superfluous.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (2, Informative)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585366)

Bullshit.

http://www.edge-online.co.uk/ [edge-online.co.uk]
Click the subscription link and be enlightened.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (5, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584790)

It really doesn't matter if the gaming companies attend or not because they are not going to be listened to anyways ...

This is very similar to what happens whenever an Oil company shows up to an environmental meeting, which believe it or not happens quite often; oil companies hire dozens of environmental scientists to ensure that they're doing as little environmental damage as is possible. (On a side note, most environmental damage is done because of govenmental decisions; oil is shipped from Alaska rather than piped through Canada because the US govenment's regulations, and shipping is prone to accidents). No matter what evidence they demonstrate to show that there is no connection between CO2 and global warming nothing they show will ever be listend to.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.

Or else... (4, Insightful)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584950)

... they end up suing the state attorney general when said state passes an obviously unconstitutional ban on game content. The game publishers won't make any progress, and the bible-thumpers behind these bans -- because, let's get serious, what else will a conference titled "Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy be about besides cooking up new legislation? -- will continue with their ill-considered efforts to make the world into some kind of sick, dull Disneyland, free of anything of which they disapprove. They form the American, Christian answer to the nutcases running the show in Iran, or Afghanistan, and deserve as much respect.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16585058)

>(On a side note, most environmental damage is done because of govenmental decisions; oil is shipped from Alaska rather than piped through Canada because the US govenment's regulations, and shipping is prone to accidents).

Bullshit. We in alaska are in the middle of a huge scandal where it turns out that BP has been paying off various officials for years to avoid having to do even basic maintence on the pipeline. As a result the line is corroded in several places, leaking and a few months back parts of it had to be shut down. This is all the oil companies fault for wanting to not pay the money to do the maintence the line requires.

You, sir, are a right-wing shill and as such you need to STFU and GTFO.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (2, Informative)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585198)

I can't speak for the Alaskan pipeline, but here in Alberta the Oil pipelines are owned by companies that are seperate from the oil companies; they tend to ensure that their oil pipelines are well maintained (in school I worked at a welding gas warehouse and we, on average, had 100 welders come in a day to pick up materials and head out to fix sections of various pipelines).

The fact is that shipping oil is far more risky than using a pipeline under similar levels of maintainance; there are tons of examples of poorly maintained oil tankers that leak tons of oil in transit and are just waiting to burst. Also, when oil pipelines have leaks, they have a localized effect and can (mostly) be cleaned up afterwords; obviously some soil will become toxic waste but there are new cleaning methods every year that get closer to resolving these problems.

You are incorrectly reacting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16585250)

You are incorrectly reacting; the gransparent was talking about the inability to ship Alaska oil to the lower 48 US states through a pipeline, due to useless regulations about it crossing international borders in the process.

As a result, the oil must be loaded onto ships, where it can leak into the ocean a number of ways, either through "acceptable spillage" during on or off loading, or through a drunk captain ramming a tanker into a rocky shoreline, to some radical environmentalist group damaging the tanker to "prove" that it's a dangerous way to move oil around, etc..

This has *nothing* to do with the BP situation, since the BP pipeline is used to move oil from the oil fields to the docks, not to a Canadian pipeline and then to the US.

-- Terry

React to this, you ignorant right-wing shill (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586060)

Oil companies are only interested in profits for their shareholders, no matter what damage they do to the environment. For decades they've been supporting research by whore-researchers who are paid to find out that belching pollution into the atmosphere doesn't really damage the environment, in fact, it increases sexual potency in males and breast-size in females.

These "researchers" are the children of the "scientists" who did all the work for the tobacco companies back in the 50's and 60's.

And we have a President who will gladly send thousands of young Americans to die and spend the treasures of a nation on a war who's only purpose is to insure a steady supply of oil to the pricks who gave him a job when he was drunk and coked to the gills, and fat contracts to a company that is now providing "strategic" support to our military and just happens to have been run by our Vice-President.

And the MEDIA has been nothing but housepets for these men who would gladly destroy a great nation as long as their greed and desire for power is satisfied. Why would you think they'd pay attention to GAMES?

They'll only pay attention to games when the next GTA scandal happens, so they can satisfy the ignorant hicks who call themselves the "Values Voters", but really are just a bunch of uptight sociopaths who want to make sure the kids stay off their goddamn lawn.

So you there, you fat son of a bitch sitting at in front of your "ultimate gaming platform", get off your ass and vote or you'll not only lose your right to play Bully, but also your right to check out a little free porn and political speech on the Internet. Not to mention you'll end up sitting in the desert in a used set of body armor with blood stains and some other poor jerk's name stitched on the lining.

You've been warned. God Save America.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (2, Insightful)

IdolizingStewie (878683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585950)

I expect it from Lower 48ers, but you live in Alaska and you don't know the difference between "the" pipeline (ie. the Alyeska Pipeline) and an infield pipeline? I'll give you a hint. The ones in the field are a lot smaller, and the damage is much less than it would be. I was astonished that happened, as a matter of fact, because I spent half my summer on the BP side of the North Slope, and I was always passing maintenance crews inspecting pipeline between camp and the rigs. GP is correct, the oil companies are much, much more environmentally conscious than they are given credit for. (disclaimer: I interned for an oilfield services company last summer)

Re:Guess they didn't learn (0, Flamebait)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586598)

Hey asshat (god I like that expression), name one. It would be nice to know so we could boot "the bastard" out of office.

In fact, other than your desire to express your hatred of... "the right-wing" - (with the ominous, da da da dum), it is the entire Alaskan congregation that is to blame. State and Federal, Republican and Democrat, all bend over for oil - or have you forgotten that Tony never collected the taxes from the Oil companies that were owed under his administration?

The BP exec specifically said that NO laws required them to conduct a pig check of the pipeline, so they didn't. No specific corruption, just general malfeasance.

Nice try on the partisan dig, though.

Someone they could learn from. (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585086)

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.

That pretty much sums the whole thing up in one line.

Actually, you could show up in any Congressional subcommittee with God in tow, and unless God happened to be made out of money, I doubt you'd influence any pending piece of legislation.

If the "games lobby" wants to make its voice heard in government, and keep itself from being run over as the Fox News scarecrow-du-jour, then they should take a very good look at what the National Rifle Association does, in terms of communicating with and mobilizing its support base, getting donations, and funneling those donations to where they'll have maximum political impact. I can't think of any organization that is as frankly successful and powerful as they are, and has continuously maintained such a high profile, and has done it while staying within the bounds of the law. (Some corporate lobbies might come close, but I think their cash burn rates are much higher for the effect they achieve.)

You can have logical arguments so beautiful they'd make Plato sit down and weep, enough scientific evidence to unequivocally prove a dozen theories of everything, but the government will still ignore you if you are not either a large force among voters, or have lots of filthy lucre to burn. Preferably, have both.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

alizard (107678) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587076)

I'd just add that if they intend to stay in business, they're going to have to step up to the plate and start buying politicians in job lots just like any other major industry does.

Much of the bad technology-related legislation that's getting passed appears to me to mainly intended by politicians to make the point "Ignore us and we will destroy you, because we can."

When consumer technology companies start spending the same percentage of their gross that Hollywood does on politicians, they will Pwn the government... because their gross is MUCH higher than Hollywood, and the content providers can either put up with this or go bankrupt trying to compete. Personally, I don't care which they do.

One would think that entertainment sector companies like companies in the game business would NOT have to have the need to buy politicians explained to them, given that the success of the Hollywood entertainment cartel in buying anti-technology and anti-consumer legislation from Congress. Where Hollywood buys anti-consumer legislation, maybe they can buy some pro-consumer legislation to replace it.

Do they want Hillary Clinton telling America about how the American game industry promotes "good moral values" among young people? They can try a $50K campaign contribution for her Presidential campaign and see how quickly she changes her mind about EVILLL!!! video games. The biggest secret about American politicians is that for a major corporation or large organized group, they are amazingly cheap.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (0)

Mike_K (138858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585390)

No matter what evidence they demonstrate to show that there is no connection between CO2 and global warming nothing they show will ever be listend to.

Because you should definitely listen to cigarette companies when they tell you cigarettes are not only safe, but also not addictive.

Seriously, though, I was with you up to that point. I am not an expert in the field, but I have gone to listen to experts speak about the subject. From what I understand, there is no "evidence". Evidence requires experimentation, and we're living in the only known experiment RIGHT NOW.

But there are lots and lots of observations that point towards CO2 being a factor in global warming.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.

Again, no one is doing controlled experiments, so there is no evidence. But, just as food for thought, US Army found that their soldiers were more willing to shoot people when they trained with life-like dummies for target practice. There probably is a link between watching and acting out violence in a simulated world, and lowering the stigma of performing violent acts. The interesting thing is that we live in one of the least violent societies in history, so we expect that stigma to go significantly higher, perpetuating the cycle.

m

Re:Guess they didn't learn (4, Informative)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585582)

Because you should definitely listen to cigarette companies when they tell you cigarettes are not only safe, but also not addictive.

Seriously, though, I was with you up to that point. I am not an expert in the field, but I have gone to listen to experts speak about the subject. From what I understand, there is no "evidence". Evidence requires experimentation, and we're living in the only known experiment RIGHT NOW.


What I was saying is less "there is no global warming, listen to the oil companies" and more that "only one side of the issue is really getting listened to". No scientist disputes that we're not at a historical high temperature (the earth was warmer durring the middle age warm period), the earth hasn't been increasing at an unprecidented rate (there have been decades where the world has increased at a more rapid rate), and there is no direct connection between greenhouse gases and the temperature increase that we have seen; it has, however, been demonstrated that the temperatures are closely related to solar activity and that Mars in undergoing a period of global warming.

Basically, I was using Global Warming as an example of how there is usually no real discussion or information exchange on political issues; usually people have made up their mind before they go to a conference and look for validation of their beliefs. If tomorow God said that global temperatures were increasing because of Solar Activity (which humans have no impact on) there would still be Millions of people who were trying to meet the kyoto targets; at the same time if there was conclusive evidence that CO2 was the only thing effecting Global Warming there would still be Millions of people who claimed that lowering greenhouse gasses was pointless.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (3, Insightful)

paralaxcreations (981218) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585820)

Soldiers trained to kill by the military were more willing to kill in a combat situation when they practiced on dummies! WOW! It must be the lifelike dummies that make them want to kill in the first place, not the "break down and rebuild" technique the military prides itself on to make otherwise peace-loving people soldiers.

What's more likely? Kids play video games and thus want to kill their friends and acquaintances in real life...OR...kid has very few friends, is picked on a lot in school, is abused or ignored by his parents, has the self esteem of a pea and plays video games BECAUSE of all the above reasons and then goes to school and kills 15 people (shitty frag count, btw).

I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about mentally unstable people becoming killers. Change a kid's environment, put funding into programs that make a kid enjoy waking up in the morning, put a TON more money into education, get better teachers who do something besides make the kids feel stupid (have had more than a few of those all throughout my school years), and take domestic abuse reports a little more seriously and maybe- just MAYBE you'll find that kids don't resort to violence.

When I was in High School I had come very close to doing what these kids seem to be making a habit out of. Luckily, my friends and family saw how depressed I was getting, and within 2 months I was enrolled in programs like marching band and drama where I was with other like-minded people, having fun, forming relationships (both romantic and non), and I was pulled out of that hole. Coincidence? I tend to think not.

In many respects, High School can be thought of as both Boot Camp and Prison tied into one. It can also be full of fun and games. It all depends on where on the social ladder you fall. Congregate with like-minded individuals, work on a goal that will provide a sense of accomplishment, and you'll find yourself enjoying the experience much more. Kids just need the proper motivation to do it.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (2, Informative)

HybridJeff (717521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585960)

Evidence does not require experimention, your definition is flawed.

evidence (v'-dns) pronunciation
n.

      1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
      2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
      3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (1)

Mike_K (138858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586356)

Evidence does not require experimentation, your definition is flawed.

That's somewhat true. Once we've determined that certain observations are tied to certain events, we can use start using these observations as evidence of these events. But until we understand these correlations, the observations are just that: observations. Not evidence.

All three of these definitions require prior knowledge of correlation between events: burglars break windows, understanding facial expressions, witnesses aren't always liars.

m

Re:Guess they didn't learn (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585494)

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.
Does the game industry have any research to support the assertion that games have no effect? If not, claiming such a thing will prove nothing but their greed.

It is time for the game industry to get beyond "well I played them and never killed anybody!" Either they should try to prove it, or fall back on another argument, such as emphacising freedom over absolute safety.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585674)

Does the game industry have any research to support the assertion that games have no effect?

      Is there any research that proves games do have a negative effect? Apart from asking people's mothers, I mean.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (2, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586184)

"Prove" is a very high standard, so probably not. "Support," yes. Here [uchicago.edu] is the very first google result for "computer-games children violence", which is 5 years old but references a meta-analysis of 35 studies which had already been performed. And these studies are mentioned on Slashdot from time to time. Of course, people are very quick to discount studies they don't want to believe. Let's assume the studies are only somewhat rigorous. Even so, are there some equally rigorous studies disputing these results? I know there are some touting other benefits of games, like cognitive skills. But enough work has been done on a link to violence to raise it as an issue.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (5, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586404)

Well, my entire generation has played video games, and the murder rate has gone down.

As an aside, isn't it strange that for some reason, the people who want to ban video games because they're dangerous and might possibly show a slight statistical increase in violence tend to be the same people who call it a 'socialist nanny state' when you're talking about regulating food safety or the environment or something that could actually save thousands of lives at once, contrary to this video game tripe, which could allegedly cause a few dozen murders here and there over time?

Re:Guess they didn't learn (2, Interesting)

Castar (67188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587190)

I'll ignore the offtopic bit of your post, and just say you've got your analogy wrong. The article isn't lambasting the game industry for not showing up, but rather the gaming press. That's a little like the sports press not showing up for the congressional hearings on baseball steroids. It's a story that's important to the industry that they cover - more important, surely, than the release of new screenshots, snarky comments by company executives, or perhaps even more important than the launch of a new console.

Most games journalism is sitting back and being spoonfed information by talented PR people, then regurgitating it. Getting up and actually doing some investigation is alien to most games "journalists", but those that put in the work are going to be the Woodwards of their trade. Which the industry sorely needs.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (1)

RvLeshrac (67653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585370)

I guess you missed PartyPoker's huge push to get people to join the Poker Players' Alliance ( http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ [pokerplayersalliance.org] ) and send letters to their congressmen, eh?

Sure, they COULD have done what most industries do and buy the votes... but that wouldn't solve the problem, it would just make it go away for one congressional session. Then they have to start buying senators and representatives all over again.

Re:Guess they didn't learn (3, Interesting)

Swanktastic (109747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585834)

There is a term for this type of political extortion: Mud Farming. It comes from the story of a farmer who owned a plot of land next to a dirt road. Each night, he'd plough up and water down the road, then wait for cars to get stuck. He would then, of course, be ready to pull them out of the mud with his tractor for a tidy sum.

In politics, it goes like this: Give money to my campaign, or I'll go after your industry. Although I don't necessarily agree, many political analysts feel the Microsoft Monopoly case occured not out of public concern, but due to the simple fact that MS was not spending enough money on lobbyists or campagins. The tech industry as a whole during the 80s-90s spent orders of magnitude less %-wise of their revenues on impacting political legislation. Mature industries like the automotive, steel, lumber, oil, etc. industries have learned to "pay the piper." The high tech industry has finally come around, and the result has been much more favorable attention from our legislators.

The video game industry finds itself in the same quagmire. Young, fast-growth industries often do. Management is focused more on putting out product than seeing "the big picture." It takes a slap on the wrist to learn. We don't see legislators going after the movie and music industries, after all.

Many would say this is due to the public's fear of "new things for kids." In part, I agree. But, the mechanics of the process of legislation involve two things: money and public opinion. Unfortunately the video game industry is losing on both fronts these days.

Where's the Game Media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16584694)

Obviously an event that did not have an adequate "FUN" component to it...

Re:Where's the Game Media? (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584784)

"FUN" also known as swag, the kind you give to get people to write positive articles about your product. Why goto a convention where you know you wouldn't get paid off to write gloriously about the latest and greatest, same-old-same-old game.

Contradiction in terms (3, Insightful)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584714)

Game, press?

That would be akin to wishing for serious coverage by Maxim magazine or Teen Beat. What the tap-dancing fetal Jesus did they expect? There hasn't been any serious game-related journalism since Next-Generation went tits up.

Re:Contradiction in terms (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584740)

Gotta plug David Wong here. I'm pretty-much not at all a gamer unless you count supertux, but I think Wong is brilliant and a serious journalist.

Re:Contradiction in terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16585262)

Chris Morris at cnn.com and Chris Remo with shacknews.com are a couple of other examples of high quality game journalism. Honestly, there are plenty of high quality game journalists out there...just no dominant publication like Next Generation. Big deal.

Re:Contradiction in terms (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585332)

There hasn't been any serious game-related journalism since Next-Generation went tits up.

And yet, just because they whined, they are getting coverage on other media outlets which is exactly what they wanted.

They win.

Bullshit. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16584774)

The luddites of the world have been taken too seriously for too long. Their sole interaction in the public square should be as objects of ridicule followed by getting the hell kicked out of them, mercilessly with injuries as lasting as possible. There's is a dream of abdicating their own personal responsibility to government services they don't wish to finance and at the expense of other people's personal freedoms. Never mind the mess, Jesus will fix it soon enough with his cloud of glory.

Heh. (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584782)

I used to run an independant newspaper, and every week I was deluged with a variety of hate mail, from readers claiming my stories were biased, to readers telling me I wasn't representing their views, to people complaining because I didn't feel the need to censor the occasional "shit" out of an article.

I always responded with the same form reply: "If you feel that your views are under-represented, I'll be happy to print an article in which you can explain them in detail. We support reader supplied stories, yadda yadda yadda."

You know how many people actually bothered to write in, even given an open forum and a paper circulation of ~30,000 ad-supported papers, left in prominent places all over town? Maybe one in a hundred.

People love to complain. You see it here every day, people expressing their outrage all over the place. But do they actually bother to try and take the message to people who don't already agree with them? Seldom.

So I'm hardly surprised that the Game media doesn't bother to actually cover events like this. They mainly work from press releases and secondary sources...Very sloppy stuff.

Maybe this is a sign that the gamer community is starting to get proactive, rather than reactive...The best time to stop a crappy game bill from passing in Congress, is before it actually passes.

Re:Heh. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586334)

Journalism 101: if you get hate mail, print it.

Either it makes a good point - in which case it deserves to be heard, in the name of fairness - or it's incoherent garbage - in which case it deserves to be exposed, in the name of entertainment. Either way, you can't lose if you just publish it without comment.

To paraphrase Atlas Shrugged (4, Insightful)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584848)

You will be looted because you have something to loot. Kudos for them on ignoring those who contribute nothing and yet seek to control the product of their minds.

Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (2, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585082)

Screw Ayn Rand and her whole twisted philosophy. No man is an island, and we are all our brother's keepers. Meaning, we do not create ourselves, our personality, it is created by the world, by other people that influence us. Using your influence to harm others is wrong. For instance, I could raise a bunch of my kids to be serial killers if I wanted to. Is that right? No. Should society have a say in the way someone raises their kids, say, to prevent people from raising a whole brood of deranged maniacs? I say so.

Now, I'm not saying the games industry is raising a bunch of maniacs. Thought I would explicitly state that to stave of the likely horde of idiots wielding straw men. I'm just saying, people have a right to determine what is decent and what isn't for their community. I may not like what my society says is decent, and I may want to practice what they say is indecent, but it is their right to set standards that others have to meet in order to be a part of that community. Don't like it? Don't live in that community.

The dumbest thing you can do when your community is discussing standards is to tell them that you don't give a fuck what they think and you are just going to do whatever the hell you want to. They are perfectly justified in not taking your opinion into consideration. This is exactly what the gaming industry has done, and it is a sign of immaturity. The smart thing to do is to get involved and address people's concerns. The more you interact, the easier it is to reach a mutually satisfactory compromise.

Even from a purely mercenary, capitalist, objectivist (what a crock!) point of view, it's in one's own self interest not to alienate large segements of one's potential market.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (4, Insightful)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585200)

Well, since we are down to the "screw this and screw that". I'll join in. Screw your community. I am an individual and I don't care what your community says I should do with my life as long as I am not hurting anyone. And if you show up at my door and DEMAND me to be your keeper, expect to get shot. If you don't like violent games, don't let your kids buy it. Same goes for porn.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (3, Interesting)

br00tus (528477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585736)

"I am an individual", yet one third of my salary is going to the US federal government, which is giving it to Halliburton so they can kill people in Iraq. So what do you do when they come to your door looking for tax money, you the individual are going to singlehandedly take on the police, the national guard, and the US army? That might play in Hollywood movies but it is not reality. The government doesn't even have to come to you for money, they go to the company boss who takes it out of wages anyhow. Which also leads one to wonder why a worker who is creating the wealth he lives on has a boss working for company owners who control his money anyhow. The idea you're "free" now is a joke - unless you really are well-to-do, which means you have little in common with the average Slashdot reader who is, at best, a professional.

We live in a capitalist society, which means it is run by capitalists. Federal reserve surveys show that over 40% of the corporate stock in the country is owned by 1% of the population, while the bottom 90% of the population has to split up the less than 20% of the pie left for them. The numbers are similar for private business as well (and bonds etc.) If you look at these types, say on the Forbes 400, you see that half of them inherited all of their money. And the cutoff between the inheritance half and "self-made" billionaires is at the $300 million line, meaning someone inheriting $280 million and parlaying it into a few billion is "self-made". In fact the top people on the list all came from wealth - Bill Gates's father and grandfather were well-to-do lawyers (Preston Gates was huge before Microsoft), Warren Buffett's father was a congressman whose family owned many stores etc. I won't even go into how much of capitalism is based on imperialist theft - say the English robbery of Ireland, India or English settlers robbery of American Indians (in the US and Canada). Or US theft of oil in Iraq.

Ayn Rand takes the reality of capitalism, hides it, and creates a fantasy land. The workers movements, the left, has always been about giving control of the workers work to the worker. This is what the capitalists don't want, or people nominally on the left who try to betray this tradition - US trade union bureaucrats who don't care about workers, or USSR communist bureaucrats who ultimately became straight-out capitalists, showing what they really were all along. Of course, people who have had workers movements and the like know this, which is why Ayn Rand is a joke anywhere outside of the US. Ayn Rand is the equivalent of the fundamentalist Jesus bullshit in the US, except for professionals and managers too smart to buy into those myths. But not smart enough to know about the world outside the US, or even inside the US going back a century or two.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16585752)

Unless you pack up and move to a desert island, you are NOT outside of the rule of law or the standards of the community. Sure, do whatever inside your own four walls, but once you decide to enter the marketplace you are legally and morally obligated to work within the standards of the community, regardless of ms rands' half-baked ravings (I refuse to dignify her uneducated screed with the term 'philosophy'). If you don't like it; do what JG did...and get the fuck out!

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586114)

You'll be happy to know that your advice has been taken by many an artist already. That's why Japanese anime is so much better than American. It's full of sexuality and violence. And because it is artfully incorporated into the anime it is of better quality. But you can't produce these kinds of products in America without paying heed to the gods of the think-of-the-children nonsense. So in the area of anime, we are just left behind. That JG has left. We all pay the price.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586258)

So, you're saying that people whose Highest Value involves drawing pictures of shitting dicknipples and child rape have left for japan...like I'm supposed to think that's a bad thing? Boo-hoo we can't make films about 10 year old girls being fileted and raped by tentacles?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like the system works!

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586644)

Then don't complain about lack of healthcare because the doctors don't want to work in a system where they have to learn as much about law as they do about medicine. Don't complain about loss of manufacturing jobs to the countries where the manufacturers get to negotiate with workers what their wages are worth instead of the union bosses. Don't complain about not having enough teachers because anyone with an iota of a talent does not want to stay in the system where they have to worry about the abitrary rules of behavior set for them by the people who have no understanding of their subject. In general, if you think the system works, you don't get to complain when someone picks and goes somewhere else after telling you the hell with your rules. The only rule you get to have in exchanging goods and services with other people is that you owe each other what you agree to owe each other. As soon as someone is forced to comply with your demands, you set yourself on a way to become alone in your world where only get to obey your rules. And you deserve to get to that world as soon as possible.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586988)

Dude, there's a huge difference between american artists refraining from producing child porn and every teacher, doctor, etc going on strike. Let me clue you in: they aren't.

One reason for that? This is their community. It is highly unlikely that they're going to give a rats' ass about not being able to buy XXX rated games or not being able to draw kiddy porn.

Your link between your geek causes and some imaginary strike-of-the-great-minds is flat-out LAUGHABLE.

The doctors don't want their kids buying crap that they know is carcinogenic (probably spelled that wrong; don't care)
The industrialists still contribute to the campaigns of the politicians who pass these laws...because it is in their own best interest.

Go jerk off more to your ayn rand fantasies; some day -if you're very lucky and very intelligent- you'll grow up and realise that in the Real World you are part of a larger community and that yes, that does mean coping with laws you don't like.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587600)

I am sorry, to disappoint you, but Ayn Rand is far from anything I idealize. Ayn Rand wrote in abstract. To compare liking her as a person to liking what she had to say is absurd. I just think that when it comes to defining how to treat others fairly, she's got it right on the dot. All the examples I was giving of what you are gonna have to cope with if you don't leave people alone with your morals garbage were taken from the real life. They are already happening and will only increase.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585838)

Unless you live alone in the wilderness, you live in a community, and that community has every right to deny you any and all benefits of membership in the community, including the right to title to land, the right to trade with members of the community, and the right to use community property like roads. If you don't like it, go build your own community and stop trying to tell others how to live their lives. If people want to set a limit, say, no public nudity, and then you go around in the nude, those people have the right to remove you from their community, by force if necessary. Are you trying to say that people aren't even allowed to talk about what is decent and what isn't?!?

I've noticed that people who say they should have the right to do whatever they want with their lives without hurting others always seem to reserve the right to define for themselves what "hurting others" means. That kind of selfishness needn't be tolerated by any civilized society.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586098)

People throw around the word "right" way too much. Where do our "rights" come from? Let us put this back in a context: This article is about a movement to control video games in the United States of America. In the USA communities are not all powerful in their ability to enforce their "rights" against the individual because the individual also has rights. Video games may be classified as speach, or the playing, owning or producing of such games may be protected from government interference by privacy rights born of judicial opinion.

Your argument that a community has a right to deny all the benefits of membership is a philisophical belief and is just as valid as the parent's belief in John Stuart Mill's harm principle. In order for your discussion to move forward, you may want to ask where these rights come from. Do they come from the collected might of the community to enforce them? Are they granted by a deity or some concept of natural law?

Also, if you're going to call a believer in the harm principle selfish because they cannot specify a test for what harm is, I'd love to know how you divine what a community "wants." Because as often as I've seen the harm principle used to excuse antisocial behavior I've seen someone else lable their opinion as the community's

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

Stalyn (662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586364)

Rights are a human construct that are formed by human institutions and the society that create them. John Stuart Mill and his brand of Utilitarianism is mostly a dead philosophy. Certain flavors of Utilitarianism still exist among certain English* philosophers like Peter Singer. Continental philosophy has moved on and takes a similar position as one described in my first sentence. Honestly the idea that there exists a moral calculus which one can base their moral decisions on just seems very naive to me.

*English as in born in the UK, USA or Australia.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586208)

People are allowed to talk about anything they want. They just can't force others to act according to whatever f#$@ed opinion of what is moral. Morality can only be the rules one sets for oneself. Don't confuse moral and ethical.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16587700)

Good, deny people the benefits of that community. They will deny you their friendship, and can go cry your liberal eyes out that somebody in this world doesn't LOVE you. Fag.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586068)

Screw your community. I am an individual.

It's *our* community. For such a rugged individualist you sure like partaking in our community and using our resources. Is that how it works? If the community serves your needs you don't mind participating in the community. But once it starts disagreeing with you the community can go fuck itself? Sounds pretty childish to me.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586182)

The "community" is a group of willing participants (as in Slashdot or your local street). The WILLINGNESS to participate to participate in community activities is not indicated by presense in the community but by taking active steps to participate in the said activities. There is nothing childish about not wanting to be forced to do things you don't want to do. If the "community" at large starts to disagree with what I do with some of the members of the community (e.g., play video games, have an orgy, etc.) the community should realize that just because it's not their cup of tea, that does not mean it shouldn't be mine. In a lawful society it will bud out. In a dictatorship, it will have the power to stop others from doing things that don't harm it. You mischaracterize forcing me to do something as "disagreeing". Disagreeing is having a different opinion -- it is not forcing others to act according to your opinion.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

KuRa_Scvls (932317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587334)

I so wish everyone thinks like you.

We'll have a cigarette-free society.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585958)

"people have a right to determine what is decent and what isn't for their community"

Really? How do you figure? You certainly don't have the right to determine what is decent for me. That is true for all values of "you" and "me".

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586076)

No man is an island, and we are all our brother's keepers.

That sounds like an Old Testament quote - and if you're a Bible fan you might be interested to know that I as your keeper will soon be banning the Old Testament, to prevent youth from being corrupted by the divinely-sanctioned rape and genocide depicted therein.

What's that, you don't want to have such objectionable material banned? You didn't want me to be your keeper, you just wanted to be mine?

I thought so. Nobody ever says "Please tell me what I can and can't see"; it's always "I'm going to tell you."

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587188)

I could raise a bunch of my kids to be serial killers if I wanted to. Is that right?

NO.

There is a lot of research on twin studies that show that identical twins reared apart in different environments tend to become similar people with similar IQ, personality etc.

There is some influence of parents on rearing kids but it pretty much all goes away when they're around 30-40 years old (statistically speaking in terms on influence on measured metrics). Their genetic pre-disposition takes over.

So, the arguement that violent games make violent kids is still under debate.

U.S. Constitution is the final sanity check (1)

LinDVD (986467) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587308)

In that case, I default to the first amendment of the United States consitution-the supreme law of the land. Politicians who are looking for scapegoats along with "parental watchdog groups" seem to think that they can censor video game content. Actually, if you think about it, all of this started with the ongoing Puritannical fear of dealing with the topic of sex-or simulated sex, since politicians didn't get in an uproar until the "hot coffee" mod was made known to them, even though the game had been on the market for a while before that happened (I do not sympathize with the way Rockstar games handled the situation, just to be clear). Leland Yee (who launched an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to regulate purchasing habits by trying to legally discriminate that minors do not have the same speech rights as adults), didn't gain ANY significant traction in his anti-video game crusade until after the "hot coffee" incident happened. In each time where the pro-censorship folks have convinced one or more politicians that they are correct, the industry fights it in the form of a lawsuit, and then multiple federal judges from multiple circuit courts have sided with the industry, and leave a very detailed explanation as to why the politician-and ultimately the person(s) possibly behind the politicians are wrong. You will note that when the industry wins, and the politician loses, they "dig in" by talking shit, and NOT citing the fact that they lost based on constitutional first amendment grounds. One might think that these pro-censorship types would learn a few things by now, but apparently not

The latest politician who is an example of this is Fred Morgan, from Oklahoma. Quote: "I am very disappointed in the industry that continues to challenge any type of restrictions on their games without being responsible enough to work with legislators to try to solve the problem." [firstamendmentcenter.org]

The pro-censorship (and people who feel that government's role is to raise your child) types often cite that there is a real problem going on with video games directly causing violence, but the evidence is non-existent [pbs.org] , save hyperbole and political posturing. Like Nomad says from Star Trek:TOS, "Non-sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated." What is more likely is that we have a disconnect with politicans (with an average age of 55) and some realities of this situation. All of this does not give legitimacy to this NIMF-sponsored "what can we do next to censor video games" summit.

I do not work for the industry, and I like XMAME, but as a military employee and a part time public school teacher, I find this witch hunt to try to censor the first amendment disturbing to say the least. Since when did the first amendment of the U.S. Constutition become unimportant? It never did. It has been whittled down a little bit since it was created, but for the most part, the majority of what it stands for and does is fully intact. The 14th amendment protects the 1st amendment from being heavily modified, so that failsafe mechanism has yet to be truly tested.

Finally, where is the evidence that an ESRB "M" rated game will cause panic in the streets? To me, the ESRB is the first form of censorship...

Suicide (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585300)

Ignoring someone who's wrong, when arguing with them would only make them more powerful, is both good and correct.

However, ignoring someone who has a gun to your head, and is asking you for a good reason why they shouldn't pull the trigger, seems rather shortsighted.

The videogames industry is, right now, in the second position. Maybe Congress doesn't have the gun to their head yet, but they're fiddling around trying to take the safety off and figure out which end to hold.

Now is not a good time to just ignore the government and hope it'll go away. That sort of attitude earned us the DMCA; wouldn't it have been nice if the EFF had been around back in the 1980s, when its the precursor laws (in particular, the anti-decryption laws regarding satellite TV) were passed?

Unfortunately, when you stay home and ignore what's going on, it doesn't keep what happens in the absence of your attention from affecting you later.

Re:Suicide (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585566)

Legitimizing those who would oppress you by having a "conversation" with them is no solution either. By acknoledging them as a force of civilized society rather than as bullies who showed to a school-yard fight would, in fact, legitimize them. Sometimes you have to take a stand against the forces of that would oppose freedom. This must be fought with the war tactics. When your enemy is stronger than you, evade him (Sun Tzu). Sell them from outside the country, if you have to. Fight them in court, if you can. But do not try to convince them that you are not a good target. That train has left the station when you became successful. Either welcome your new overlords, or fight them. So far (intentionally or not) they have taken a step towards a fight. I repeat myself, kudos to them.

Huh? (1)

scwizard (941758) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585616)

Slashdotters have read that book?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586412)

Yes. Presumably because it's against the Americans With Disabilities Act to bar retards from posting.

Re:Huh? (1)

Sordid Euphemism (974100) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586652)

And despised every syllable. Ayn Rand is to competent philosophy what Rev. Jim Jones is to proper retirement planning.

"Gaming journalism"? hahahaha (5, Informative)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584888)

These are the same journalists who won't give any exclusively reviewed game less than a 9.0/10, use developer diaries (aka devs shamelessly plugging their projects) to fill webspace, make every previewed game sound like The Next Big Thing, frequently make grammatical errors on their front pages (it's and its are different, IGN.com), write like they're still in high school, and generally suck at everything they do.

Sorry for sounding so cynical, but I've been reading gaming mags and websites for years and the quality is steadily decreasing. Gaming journalism is about not pissing off the big guys (like EA) so you keep your ad revenue coming, effectively destroying any integrity in the game review process. Not every website is this bad, I know, but the big ones are pretty shameless. Go to Metacritic.com and click every review for Battlefield 2142. Funny how only one or two mention how the game has in-game advertisements...

Re:"Gaming journalism"? hahahaha (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585672)

I think we're seeing similar trends for hardware review sites.

I'm guessing they didn't understand the invitation (2, Insightful)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584914)

Given how incomprehensible some gamers can be, I'm guessing the invitation went something like.. 'GAMAZ 4 LIFFE HV p0wnD a Con4rEnCe HA11 4 R M77t... ' and went downhill from there.

Re:I'm guessing they didn't understand the invitat (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586578)

The sad part is... you tried.

How many games journalists /are/ there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16584924)

As in actual journalists, not reviewers or (non-investigative) bloggers?
I know some of the bigger sites have news editors, but I think that's about it. And of course what's happening in WoW or Second Life is much bigger news to them (and us readers).

I guess theyre (2, Funny)

Lispy (136512) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584926)

too busy gaming!

Well..... (2, Insightful)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584928)

The mainstream game media press is only a marketing machine, not an advocacy group like the author of the title expects. The mainstream game media does not see any money to be made by attending those events, but in reality all they care about are dollar signs. Of course, this will change, especially if a nutcase takes over in Congress and Presidency and starts passing restrictive video-game censorship laws forcing the industry to start listening rather than strictly selling based on what hollywood sells the most.

Follow the money (2, Insightful)

java_dev (894898) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584940)

Why should journalists attend? It's the game publishers who pay the bills...

What game media? (1)

colmore (56499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584942)

"Ooooh exclusive SCREENZ!!!" Isn't really reporting.

Good for them (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#16584986)

The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy was this weekend...

I am sorry, but anyone from game media should not be attending any conference called "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy". Why? Because it will only give more credit to the conference.

The fact of the matter is there should not be an public policy relating to games and youth at all. They're games for Christ sake. don't you think the government has more important things to set policy on? Like oh say, warrantless searches at airports [slashdot.org] ?

Games and game content can not and should not be regulated any more than art or films.

Re:Good for them (1)

elhedran (768858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585268)

Never mind that when I buy a gaming mag, I don't really want to read a feature on "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy". Its not exactly the kind of thing the majority of their market would expect to find in a mag that quite often is bought for its reviews of the latest games, tech and entertainment.

I can't speak for everyone, but I buy a gaming mag for two reasons. First as a sort of voluntary advertising, to see what new games I might like to buy. Second for something that is enjoyable to read. Quite frankly the summit is neither.

Actually.. (4, Funny)

onion2k (203094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585014)

From the no-one-attended-the-antarctic-bikini-fashion-show- either dept

Oh but I did. And those nipples... dear lord those nipples!

invitations? (5, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585036)

Did the conference planners send out multiple invitations to the gaming press well in advance of the event? Or did they just announce it on their own website and expect everyone to find out about it on their own?

Attendence without compensation? (1)

chuckfucter (703084) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585054)

Why should they show? They aren't there to promote a new product, since it involves childrens they should drop everything a flyout there? Seriously, no one showed up to my party against breast cancer /w free mamograms, does that mean everyone hates breasts, of course not - they hate me.

Gaming Media Aren't Journalists. (4, Informative)

iSeal (854481) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585064)

That's because GameFirst incorrectly assumes that the gaming media are journalists. They are not. Or so at least in North America.

There seems to be two different standards at play here. American gaming mags in particular, for instance, are paid mostly by game publishers via advertisements. European mags, for the most part, do not rely on these publishers for income. That's why European mags are so frickin' expensive.

However, you can see that the focus is quite different for the two. American gaming "journalists" hype the latest games from big publishers, ignore all the indie titles, and never question disturbing practices in the industry. There are two reasons for this. For one, because they don't want to endanger their money stream. For another, because sensationalist and shallow "reporting" is what sells. It's all about money. Integrity has no place in such a world.

I must say, however, that European gaming mags do cover social aspects, cons, indie titles, in addition to your stereotypical big publisher stuff. Why? Because they're less dependant on sucking up to those same publishers.

Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (5, Informative)

ewhac (5844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585074)

A quick Google search reveals that the National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy [mediafamily.org] is an event organized and sponsored by the National Institute on Media and the Family [mediafamily.org] .

In case you didn't know, NIMF is a right-of-center conservative, sensationalist group that finds things -- anything -- to complain about in the media. These are the same guys who gave a grade of 'F' to the ESRB's rating system. They also advocate -- with soon-to-be-ex-Senator Joe Lieberman as their mouthpiece -- a uniform media rating system monitored by an "independent" oversight group.

They're not nearly as bad as James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group. In fact, they've actually told Jack Thompson to take a hike. But they are in no way the friends of the games industry. Given NIMF's record, the "summit" likely had nothing to do with a frank exchange of views or exploring the true nature of mass media and its impact on the human psyche, and was just a schmooze-fest for people bent on circumventing the First Amendment.

Attending would have only legitimized the event. The games industry was correct to stay away.

Schwab

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (4, Interesting)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585444)

First of all don't be so sure about Joe Liberman. As soon as people find out who his opposition is they will run to the polls to vote for Liberman and act like they never associated with the other guy.

Secondly, this organization is not all bad. Look at this quote.
As I've said for years, some video games, especially ultraviolent and killographic games and certain industry practices deserve some public condemnation. The evidence for a causal link between violent games and violent behavior is mounting. And with so much money to be made, some in the industry often seem to lose sight of their public responsibility to protect children. As I've said before, however, there are a lot of very good video games. The term video game shouldn't be derogatory, and the term "gamer" shouldn't be a dirty word either.

Criticizing the people who play video games for the irresponsibility of some in the industry is nothing more than guilt by association. Millions of people-hardworking, responsible adults and healthy, happy kids-play good video games.

Censorship and demonization are not the answer. If we antagonize thoughtful, reasonable people, we'll only make it harder to reform a flawed industry and protect our kids.
We'll never find "the better way, the more effective way, to allow both freedom and responsibility to co-exist," that Matthew Metzo hopes for in his letter.
Taken from this [mediafamily.org] article. Emphasis mine. They don't want to censor, they just want oversight of the ratings process. I for one think that the whole GTA San Andreas thing is stupid. I can't sell my copy back to the store now because of the re-rating. I still think video games need to be rated though and if the ESRB would have gotten off of their lazy asses and taken a real look at GTA San Andreas it probably would have been rated Adults Only in the first place. AO does not need to equal Porn.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (1)

PygmySurfer (442860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586304)

I still think video games need to be rated though and if the ESRB would have gotten off of their lazy asses and taken a real look at GTA San Andreas it probably would have been rated Adults Only in the first place. AO does not need to equal Porn.

Is there really that big a difference between an Mature (17+) rating and an AO (18+) rating? The majority of 17 year olds I know or have ever known would be mature enough to play San Andreas. And the ones that aren't probably wouldn't be mature enough at 18 either.

M: MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

AO: ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

The only real differentiator I see between those is the "graphic sexual content and nudity" part of the AO rating, which San Andreas didn't contain (Hot Coffee required a 3rd party modification, I hardly see how that should count). The only other difference is the "prolonged scenes of intense violence" vs. "intense violence, blood and gore" - The blood and gore sections almost makes the M rating sound worse. Are any of the "violent" scenes in San Andreas "prolonged"? How does the ESRB define "prolonged"?

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (1)

Thexare Blademoon (1010891) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586432)

Is there really that big a difference between an Mature (17+) rating and an AO (18+) rating?

I believe the main difference is this:

Have you ever seen a place like Wal-Mart selling an AO game?

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (1)

pilkul (667659) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587380)

For all the conciliatory tone of that article, in substance it's not so much. It is viciously hostile towards developers of violent videogames, if nothing else.

As I've said for years, some video games, especially ultraviolent and killographic games and certain industry practices deserve some public condemnation. The evidence for a causal link between violent games and violent behavior is mounting. And with so much money to be made, some in the industry often seem to lose sight of their public responsibility to protect children.

Note the careful choice of words: "killographic", a word which exists solely to smear the game industry. Then he implies that video game developers are driven by shameless greed -- when the truth is that they simply have a different opinion on the morality of violence in games, and would likely prefer to make games violent even if there was no money to be made.

The truth is that game developers are as concerned about children as he is. Many of them have families themselves. They also go to great lengths to conform to their ESRB rating. If he didn't view videogame developers as demons he might not be so zealous about legally smacking them down rather than engaging a dialogue with them and working with the existing industry ratings system.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (1)

MBC1977 (978793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16587436)

Uh I'll buy your copy off you. lol (seriously)

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (1)

pilkul (667659) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585796)

soon-to-be-ex-Senator Joe Lieberman
'fraid not, Lieberman is running as an independent and is currently ten points ahead of Lamont in the polls.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16585948)

Given NIMF's record, the "summit" likely had nothing to do with a frank exchange of views or exploring the true nature of mass media and its impact on the human psyche, and was just a schmooze-fest for people bent on circumventing the First Amendment.

And yet, the article author, who was actually THERE, didn't seem to get this impression. You're just making his point for him - that "we" (pro-gaming people) need to actually find out what the other side are saying rather than throw around arguments like "Oh, I know all about them, I know what they would have said." You just come off sounding as ignorant and closed-minded as the other side. Now, if you could tell me some specific ideas espoused at this conference and what is wrong with them, I'd listen.

People in power are listening to the people at this conference - and they're not listening to people like you, because you don't give any impression of actually knowing what you're fighting against. True, the anti-gaming people generally don't know what they're fighting against either, but they're good at faking it in a way that is convincing to other people who also don't know what the anti-gamers are fighting. Pro-gamers have to learn to talk that language, and what better way than by listening to native speakers?

I lost... (1)

filterchild (834960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585098)

Dammit! I saw "The Game" and I lost. :/

Re:I lost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586044)

And I thought I was safe from The Game on Slashdot. :(

I don't ask for much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16585128)

The only thing I expect from IGN, Gamespot, etc are developer interviews, game previews, and game reviews.

Publications available where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16585158)

Serious gaming publications? Sorry? Where are they then?

Any game mag. I have bought in the last good few years can have its editorial direction summed up by:

"whoaar - look at the size of Lara's assets" or

"whoaar - look at the prostitutes in GTA" or

"whoaar look at the photorealistic intestines when you shoot this innocent civilian" or

"whoaar - look at those graphics - me and the boys in the game pro/ho/bo/go/mo/fo office all shat ourselves when we saw it - Lara's assets are so detailed".

No one cares. (3, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585254)

Maybe there was no media coverage because no one cares.

Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info. (1, Insightful)

mofomojo (810520) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585272)

Let's get this straight. The game media in America are all about marketing. Never will they touch a topic that insults or questions the validity of the video game industry. Rarely will they cover indie games and never will the cover the free / open-source games that are sometimes just as good if not better than current games.

Of course, it's all about containing that 'buy! buy! buy!' urge in Video Gamers to keep the industry growing. Naturally, it's going to collapse in on itself, as everything eventually does that grows at rates like this. The American business attitude is get rich - as fast as possible - then try to get away as fast as possible without any negative repercussions on themselves. This is also the same media that purports the absurd idea that games over 5 years old are "classic".

Mhmm. If you buy anything from these guys, you're a fucking idiot. Who in the United States isn't? Video games are a part of the problem of widespread poor literary skills and apathy. From calling eachother n-words online to wasting away hundreds of dollars grinding on World Of Warcraft, it sucks and is destroying your society all around you. You keep investing more and more power and money into fewer and fewer, then you're s hocked at outrages like this after you've destroyed all sense of community and indy media?

Hah! You're left with a suburban, technlogical wasteland, and you're angry? You're angry at how so few people care? You shouldn't be angry, you should be outrages - not at the powers that be - but at yourselves for destroying everything from the environment to your childrens', buying into the corporate lies and thinking independently and broadcasting your opinions independently so .. so .. rarely. This is the type of regular outrage and autocracy you oughtta expect from a society like yours. Where money is king, and REAL humans are slaves. You've been pushing for it since day one, and this is your result; Utter fucking stupidity like fanboys, video games, Family Guy, SUVs, television, fake lawns, killing all of the environment, record obsesity rates, stupid fucking diet trends, MySpace and all that shit that you're pushing for that's bringing your American legacy down like at astronomical levels. You're shocked at this? The smallest of issues in entire little shithole of a nation? I'm not.

Of course you're oblivious, you're worse, you're apathetic. And you're training a whole new generation of citizens to be little apathetic chicken shits to sit there and fight over whose video games are better like the children they are.

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16586224)

[quote]Utter fucking stupidity like fanboys, video games, Family Guy, SUVs, television, fake lawns, killing all of the environment, record obsesity rates, stupid fucking diet trends, MySpace and all that shit.[/quote]
fyi, family guy is awesome. fake lawns are because *gasp* there isnt water in the desert, and some (normal) people dont want to look at rocks. video games rock, if you dont like them, i dont think slashdot is really the place for you. fanboys arent nearly as much of a trend in the US as they are in japan (otaku's anyone?), myspace is for connection, for those we may have lost contact with.

so, go die in a fire.

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info (1)

PygmySurfer (442860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586328)

blah, blah, blah.. if you really give a damn, go out and do something about the problem, instead of sitting on your fat ass telling everyone what THEIR problem is and what THEY should do.

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586358)

So what, groups of moronic bible-thumpers saying that video games are the devil are going to help? Doubt it. Religion is the biggest problem in the US today. It's stupid, violent, and in a very real sense of the word, "Evil".

Isn't this just like... (3, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585308)

... the one-legged man who never turned up at the ass-kicking party?

Well, let's see... (3, Informative)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585628)

The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy is hosted by The National Institute on Media and the Family and Iowa State University.

First session was an overview presented by Douglas Gentile. You can buy his book here [booksforchristians.com] . Next, they had a session on "Violent Video Games: Effects and Public Policy" from Craig Anderson [iastate.edu] . Then they had a panel discussion with Joanne Cantor [joannecantor.com] , Kim Thompson [harvard.edu] , Douglas Gentile [oup.com] , and one person from the ESRB.

I can go on, but it looked like a mutual masterbation get-together from the names I saw in attendance. So I can see why the games press didn't want to go.

Buncha worthless tits anyway (1)

Asrynachs (1000570) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585746)

The games media is so biased it's sickening. You can't even call what these smucks do journalism.

What gaming media? (3, Interesting)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16585768)

From TFA:
Shame on the game news outlets like GameSpy, IGN, and GameSpot, among others; outlets with the resources to send a reporter to the conference, but chose not to...


Why would such "gaming media" bother showing up at a political event? None of those web sites or their related magazines have anything to do with legitimate journalism. They're a bunch of hacks who sit around giving absurdly friendly reviews to game companies which return the favor by advertising with them, or in the case of Gamespy, licensing their code. They're a bunch of parasites, not responsible journalists, and they don't go to events that don't involve free stuff and half-naked girls because they don't care about the game industry in the first place. If they lose their jobs they can all just go work in some other BS wing of the American media.

Why should the media go? (2)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586150)

"National Summit on Video Games, Youth and Public Policy" sounds good, right? Except let's peel back the skin and see who hosts it. This is a group who is telling developers about how to handle their games.

I'll live with that, because there's other problems in Gamesfirst's criticism.

Now explain to me why every journalist should rush to this event... explain to me why I should be climbing the walls to get in. Explain how anyone gives a shit about it?

The simple answer is they don't. Has anyone heard of it? I sure as hell haven't, and I work in the industry. There's three problems with this criticism.

A. Who cares? The fans don't care for these types of "let's hold hands events", developers should either already have been included or don't care.

B. Why go? It sounds from the website about the confrence that there's a considerable expense to go to this. This is the first annual event? Did they actually invite people or did they say they were holding this event and told everyone? Did they try to work out a deal or just expected everyone to rush to their confrence? And if all this is not enough. It's in IOWA. That's not local to ... anything really. I've spent my whole life avoiding Iowa.

C. Why them? This is the heart of the matter and the biggest problem. Again this sounds like a group who either isn't worth listening to or doesn't change opinions. Either way that's fine, those are the two areas most groups excel at, but knowing their stance enough. Does anyone know how many confrences exist in a single year? The answer is too many already. Does the mainstream media have to go to everyone one? Nope. Now, if they really were invited to this event that's fine, but we don't know that. We don't know if anyone knew it was happening. Do a search on the name of the confrence, you see the home site, then gamesfirst. It sounds like no one really knew about the confrence.

So let's sum up. Gamesfirst went to something that not many people probably heard of, anyone who cares about probably went to, that no one knew if it was worth spending money to go to, and that was out of the place. Good for them, now we know why some of us haven't heard of them before.

A cursory examination of Gamesfirst's site, makes me wonder if we should even shill for them with an article about it. They have an "interesting" site to say the least.

Why would they bother (2, Interesting)

Wovel (964431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16586746)

1. Were they invited? 2. Gaming Press covers games, how to play them , if they are fun. They do not cover public policy. I fail to see why the gaming press would express any interest in this at all, or the author thinks they should.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...