Jack Thompson vs. Microsoft

Flabio · Post by **Flabio** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:44 am 0

Jamesac wrote:Legally enforcing ratings at the counter will have zero effect on kids getting the M games. Seriously, no effect at all.

The UK would beg to differ.

Moot point though, cause it'll never happen in the US.

Jamesac · Post by **Jamesac** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:49 am 0

You really believe that a hugely greater percentage of kids in the US buy M games than the UK?

Mr Dom wrote:Ive been in the queue in game and watched parents buy GTA for their 10 year old sons, had the sales person ask them if they are sure and do they understand it is an 18 game, and the parents just get narky and say 'look, he wants it so Im buying it'.

How do you think most kids in the US get their M games?

James

Flabio · Post by **Flabio** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:57 am 0

The BBFC has been rating films, videos and games for decades. Do you honestly believe they'd keep doing it if it had little to no effect?

It works fairly well here. I doubt it would everywhere else. We're a whole different culture despite speaking (mostly) the same language.

FatherDougal · Post by **FatherDougal** » Fri May 25, 2007 12:38 pm 0

What's he going on about though - how can he sue Microsoft for underage people being able to buy it? Surely that is the retailer's responsibility to enforce that? That's like suing Smirnoff because an under 18 was sold it down Tesco...

Mr Dom · Post by **Mr Dom** » Fri May 25, 2007 1:18 pm 0

Apart from the JT being a twat, I think its an issue that will just go away eventually, as more game-literate people start having kids. The base problem is that many parents don't understand games/think they are all kid orientated anyway. I might get GTA if I had a 16 year old (who was kinda sensible, at least as sensible as a 16 year old can be), but for a 10-12 year old as Ive seen happen - no way.

Maybe some shock adverts like the smoking ones - shown late at night, show some more graphic in-game footage, and then reinforce '18' rating means dont buy this for your pre-teens you technilliterate muppet!

HGFB · Post by **HGFB** » Fri May 25, 2007 2:56 pm 0

FatherDougal wrote:What's he going on about though - how can he sue Microsoft for underage people being able to buy it? Surely that is the retailer's responsibility to enforce that? That's like suing Smirnoff because an under 18 was sold it down Tesco...

He calls games like that murder simulators. He actually wants companies to stop making them. The selling them to minors is another issue he has.

Sledge · Post by **Sledge** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:13 pm 0

Mr Dom wrote:reinforce '18' rating means dont buy this for your pre-teens you technilliterate muppet!

That's not what the rating really means, though, is it. Outside of the realms of statutory abuse parents have the freedom to decide whether or not something is 'for' their kids or not in their own homes. Ratings (in general, so I'm including movies) therefore tend to perform two functions: (i)To help parents decide whether they'd consider something suitable for their own kids without having to view it and (ii)to stop minors (or, if you like, retail) deciding for themselves what they're going to watch.

It does seem a bit odd to have part i (which has been getting better, modern ratings being far more descriptive than they used to be) without part ii to back it up -- a system that advises parental discretion while blockading minors looks like the most reasonable approach to me.

F-ZeroOne · Post by **F-ZeroOne** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:53 pm 0

I would pay to see Jack Thompson vs Master Chief.

Something I've always wanted to do: get a couple of real Army guys and ask them some questions. Like "On the battlefield, people turn transparent-red and disappear when defeated, yes?". Or "Picking up a box with a red cross on it will heal any sort of wound instantly?". Or "I can fire three thousand 10mm rounds a minute with total accuracy, little effect from recoil and without burning out the barrel of the gun within about 30 seconds?".

Perhaps combat should be more like video games, not the other way round...

chub · Post by **chub** » Fri May 25, 2007 9:07 pm 0

F-ZeroOne wrote:I would pay to see Jack Thompson vs Master Chief.

Something I've always wanted to do: get a couple of real Army guys and ask them some questions. Like "On the battlefield, people turn transparent-red and disappear when defeated, yes?". Or "Picking up a box with a red cross on it will heal any sort of wound instantly?". Or "I can fire three thousand 10mm rounds a minute with total accuracy, little effect from recoil and without burning out the barrel of the gun within about 30 seconds?".

Perhaps combat should be more like video games, not the other way round...

Good idea! Next war that happens, someone needs to fly over the battlefields first dropping medikits and ammo everywhere. It would save the soldiers carrying so much stuff with them.

F-ZeroOne · Post by **F-ZeroOne** » Sat May 26, 2007 6:13 pm 0

chub wrote:
F-ZeroOne wrote:I would pay to see Jack Thompson vs Master Chief.

Something I've always wanted to do: get a couple of real Army guys and ask them some questions. Like "On the battlefield, people turn transparent-red and disappear when defeated, yes?". Or "Picking up a box with a red cross on it will heal any sort of wound instantly?". Or "I can fire three thousand 10mm rounds a minute with total accuracy, little effect from recoil and without burning out the barrel of the gun within about 30 seconds?".

Perhaps combat should be more like video games, not the other way round...
Good idea! Next war that happens, someone needs to fly over the battlefields first dropping medikits and ammo everywhere. It would save the soldiers carrying so much stuff with them.

Hmm, maybe instead of Troop Surges they should try sending a few Bungie guys out to Iraq with some ideas...

More seriously, though, I'm surprised no-ones ever tried this tack with the likes of everyones favourite lawyer before. It should be blindingly obvious that although you can perhaps learn how combat might look and feel from a videogame, thats a long way from one actually teaching you how to use a firearm.

Its like driving games. By Jacks theory, having played a number of driving videogames before learning to drive, I should have made Lewis Hamiliton look like Dick Dastardly. Instead, it took me nine tries to pass my driving test...

Kamineko · Post by **Kamineko** » Sat May 26, 2007 7:05 pm 0

chub wrote:
F-ZeroOne wrote:I would pay to see Jack Thompson vs Master Chief.

Something I've always wanted to do: get a couple of real Army guys and ask them some questions. Like "On the battlefield, people turn transparent-red and disappear when defeated, yes?". Or "Picking up a box with a red cross on it will heal any sort of wound instantly?". Or "I can fire three thousand 10mm rounds a minute with total accuracy, little effect from recoil and without burning out the barrel of the gun within about 30 seconds?".

Perhaps combat should be more like video games, not the other way round...
Good idea! Next war that happens, someone needs to fly over the battlefields first dropping medikits and ammo everywhere. It would save the soldiers carrying so much stuff with them.

Matt Nilsson approves of this.

Dio · Post by **Dio** » Sat May 26, 2007 8:48 pm 0

F-ZeroOne wrote:Its like driving games. By Jacks theory, having played a number of driving videogames before learning to drive, I should have made Lewis Hamiliton look like Dick Dastardly. Instead, it took me nine tries to pass my driving test...

That said, the first time I had a massive rear-end oversteer skid in a transit van, I'm sure the only reason I controlled it is because of Daytona.

gilesgoat · Post by **gilesgoat** » Sat May 26, 2007 9:20 pm 0

I am very curious ( and someway a little bit worried as well ) to see
what will happen with SG.

Theoretically we are "absolutely purely abstract" that "well, if call violence
the fact you are shooting abstract weapons to abstract shapes then ok
we are violent .. " in some theory we should be "for everyone".

But if you see the forms and such about the ESRB rating .. .. it's mental ..
.. I don't know .. the more you read it the more you don't understand
then really how/what/why your game could be rated in some way instead
of another ..

Very curious to see the results .. a bit worried as well .. but I wonder
what they'll be able to find out.

( as a matter of fact, just to be clear rating is NOT made by MS, is made
by the ESRB itself so "who knows what they can take out" ).

We were really talking yesterday me and Yak .. today far too many things
went a bit "too beyond" .. it's .. truly mentalist nowadays to do <anything>
and hope to be "as much better done as possibly" because there could
always be some nutter starting to yell somethng on what you've done
and some more nutters ready to listen to him/her ( especially lawyers ).

It's really too mad, far too mad .. it's more complex to pass all this than
to actually code a game really .. and while the code you can think "you
made it good because no one found more bugs after testing" this kind
of stuff you can never be completely sure "I did it all ok" .. because
some nutters could be behind the corner ..

F-ZeroOne · Post by **F-ZeroOne** » Sat May 26, 2007 9:27 pm 0

I think the solution, Giles, is to ask "What would Eugene Jarvis do?".

The answer, of course, is whatever the hell he wants to.

F-ZeroOne · Post by **F-ZeroOne** » Sat May 26, 2007 9:28 pm 0

Dio wrote:
F-ZeroOne wrote:Its like driving games. By Jacks theory, having played a number of driving videogames before learning to drive, I should have made Lewis Hamiliton look like Dick Dastardly. Instead, it took me nine tries to pass my driving test...
That said, the first time I had a massive rear-end oversteer skid in a transit van, I'm sure the only reason I controlled it is because of Daytona.

No, thats not possible. You can't learn anything positive from videogames, remember?