Bully Trailer Hits the Web 444
GGLucas writes "Contrary to the rumours that have spread about the Rockstar game, Bully, and it's storyline, the game's trailer as released by IGN today spins in a completely different direction, anti-game critics will not be happy. From the article: 'Bully puts players in control of 15 year-old Jimmy Hopkins — a boy who has just begun his first year in the New England-based Bullworth Academy, and a guy who's charged with the mission of ridding the school of a number of its undesirable elements.'"
Bad marketting (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bad marketting (Score:2)
Re:Bad marketting (Score:5, Informative)
Come on, Slashdot, you're supposed to be better than the regular news spin!
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
Mod parent up. please. He didn't know better, and still, I applaud his immediate courage to stand up and defend our ranks.
In the meantime, I can answer your question: because they're working on a crossover sequel, Bully 2/Postal 3: Siege over Columbine.
Uh... right
Anyway, from the website's [rockstargames.com] overview [rockstargames.com]:
"The Rockstar tradition of groundbreaking, original gameplay and humorous tongue-in-cheek storytelling i
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
Except for the fact that he went to prep school in Massachusetts, and college in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Re:Bad marketting (Score:4, Insightful)
Rockstar's games are like movies where you play the main character, and they're great fun at that. The sex might be there, but IMHO it's not an essential part, just adding to the whole atmosphere. Actually I find that the people my age (30+) enjoy the GTA series more than the teenagers and young adults I know, exactly because of the movie feeling of the series. You know, sex isn't that much of a topic if you regularly do it, and to most people I know, the sex parts of the GTA series are mildly amusing at best.
As for the hot coffee part - in my opinion as a programmer that's just an easter egg. I have lost track of all of those I left in my own projects over the decades. And a game without easter eggs just isn't complete.
Doesn't seem too bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, very, very bad.
You see, kids who fight back against bullies are just like Harris and Klebold! They wear black and listen to scary music and have guns, lots of guns! And they kill people with them! Lots and lots of people!
In fact, any kid who fights back against a bully might just be
A TERRORIST! LOOK! LOOK, OVER THERE! SCARY, SCARY TERRORISTS!
TERRORISTS! 9/11! ROCKSTAR GAMES! 9/11! AL-QAEDA! 9/11! COLUMBINE! 9/11! TERRORISTS! RED LAKE! 9/11! THEY'RE ALL IN IT TOGETHER! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHIIIIIIIIIILDREN!
There. I hope this clears things up for you.
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:5, Funny)
- Like Harris and Klebold... Well, I'm a geek in high school and I play video games. Close enough!
- Black clothes... Check! I got like six shirts at QuakeCon.
- Scary music... Yep, my baby sister is terrified by MC Hawking!
- Guns, lots of guns... Well I don't actually have any, but once I downloaded a book on how to make one!
Awesome. I'm a real live terrorist.Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:2)
1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to be ridiculed, beat up, harrassed, and generally driven to depression *daily* by a *wide*range* of youth at my school; not just traditional bullies. Columbine happened when I was a Junior (or virtually finished with my primary education).
All of a sudden, my harrassment stopped! Literally that very same day! I was called into the Principle's office a full three times. The reason? I met a lot of the characteristics of the massacrists; sans a close friend (at that time I had none). All of a sudden, people would actually come up to me and spontaneously *apologize* for how they treated me; even 8 years later people are still *apologizing* to me as I sporadically meet them in town
I used to go to the Principle's office to report being punched in the face, jumped in the parking lot or being spat on by groups of girls (seriously
After nearly 2 decades of near persistent parent-teacher meetings, moving to different schools, etc, to try to assuage the torture my peers inflicted upon the obvious physical grunt of the pack (but i have an IQ of 150), schools are finally taking things seriously.
So excuse me if it took a horrible massacre to make ordinary people realize how horribly detrimental their actions are. God turning something bad good, I guess. I will always remember the day of Columbine as the day my life started becoming enjoyable for the first time ever.
Unfortunatly... (Score:2)
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, with all the recent media releases with how darkly into hatred the Columbine kids were, perhaps there should be no sympathy for them. But I've always wondered... did they choose their victims, or was it really just random shooting with all that planning behind it? If the victims were chosen, for what reasons
I remember very clearly in seventh grade, many years ago, a fellow student was picked on mercilessly everyday until he would cry and have a total fit. Every single day. The bullies were very, very good at doing it covertly. The victims fits were off course a total fight/flight reaction, and I'm sure it could have even been seen as comical-hence why they did it. This kid was usually the one who got in trouble too, as teachers would ignore the smalltalk from the bullies and would only notice when he would burst into tears or slap/punch somebody. He was an incredibly nice kid and of course smart.
What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular.
It makes me want to do something about it now. Seventh graders suck at communicating their feelings. It really would have been nice if they gave us surveys so we could express in a directed manner how we and our peers were being treated. Of course there would be jokesters, but I'm sure it is possible to build control mechanisms within surveys?
I know this is impractical but... there has to be something.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Insightful)
One day my father suggested I start going to the gym with him to work out, it was a powerlifters gym, if you wanted aerobics you ran outside, everything inside was freeweights. I started lifting and advanced FAST, applying my studying habbits to learn proper techniques and eating habbits. I gained about 40lb of muscle over the course of my sophomore year. I had to get a new custom made school uniform because my sholders were so wide.
I was still a nerd, I still played card games with the other 2 or 3 nerdy kids in the cafe during our study halls, I was still a member of the chess club and the math team but after school I would go and lift weights. I even entered a few powerlifting competitions and took 1st place a couple of times. It really turned my life at school around. My junior year I remember early on one of the football players started picking on me and my friends so I stood up and he got in my face... soon realizing that while shorter I was much wider in the shoulders then he was. I told him I'd arm wrestle him and if I won he would have to appologize to my friends and leave us alone for the rest of the year. I put him down so fast he brused his knuckles when they hit the table. Needless to say none of us ever had any problems with the bullies in the school ever again. Despite the fact that I still enojyed doing all of my nerdy things I had earned a lot of respect from a whole lot of the people who used to pick on me.
Nerds are smart enough, get them on a training program, martial arts, weight lifting etc. Bullies pick on your weak spots and typically the week spot of a nerd is their lack of physical prowess... you fix that and the bullies will pick on someone else... or find something better to do.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:4, Insightful)
I took a lot of crap in school from various people, and I worked my way through it eventually, but it was hard as hell.
Columbine didn't horrify me. I could see it, you know? I had recourse when I was in school. I'm not a little guy, and physically I was in pretty good shape. I could fight back. But what about people who couldn't? What do you do with all that hate and rage?
A bunch of people at that school dumped a lot of crap on those guys, because they knew that there was nothing they could do about it. What were they going to do? Come in and gun down random classmates?
It's a good lesson. Everything we do has consequences. Make sure, when you shit on someone, that they have something to lose. Because, if they have nothing to lose, they may decide to take you down with 'em.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Interesting)
But why did they do it? It wasn't sociopathy...They were out for revenge, and by that point it didn't matter to them whose blood was spilled.
The whole idea isn't that uncommon. It's been books, it's been movies (The Basketball Diaries, Heathers). And it's not the books and movies that are causing it, it's the sheer misery of high school. I definitely fantasized about getting even when I was in high school. Heh. I was on the school rifle team for years, and I'd think to myself, after some asswipes had picked on me, "I could take their heads off from a quarter mile away, and no one would ever catch me."
It was a comforting daydream, a way to vent some of that hatred, instead of stewing in it. That's pretty much why I play GTA...When I feel the need to kill someone, I have a nice outlet. I'll almost certainly pick up Bully. Sounds like a game I would have LOVED back in High School.
I'm sure however, that someone who plays that game obsessively because of his real life situation, will decide to beat one of his tormenters to death with a baseball bat. Not because of the game, or even to make Jack Thompson blow a load in his pants, but just because, when things get bad enough, you can't take refuge in fantasy.
That's all these damn cross-correlational studies mean. Promiscuous people have more sexually suggestive music on their iPods. Angry people listen to angry music, and play violent games. Nerds and geeks read Slashdot. It's because we're that kind of person, that we do that kind of thing. How the hell do you think the person got the thing in the first place? Did someone secretly put sexually suggestive music into the iPod to turn the listener into a slut?
The lengths people will go to to put the blame on anything but people.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Insightful)
When I have kids, I'm enrolling them in a martial arts class at the earliest opportunity, and I'm going to tell them straight up--and I'll let the school know too--that my kid *will* defend themself and it won't be pretty. And what do I do if my kid is doing the bullying? Same thing--beat him like a redheaded stepchild. I didn't break the cycle to have it started by us.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:3, Funny)
Please, no karate (Score:4, Insightful)
Pu-leeeze. Where I went to high school, saying you had martial arts training was the surest way to get your ass kicked. It's not that people hate martial arts. It's just that mentioning it sort-of challenges others to "test" you. And we did. I can safely say that 99.9% of the martial-arts people I saw fight, lost. And usually lost badly. Don't forget you are going up against other people who "street fight" and don't fight to choreographed moves. It is my belief that martial arts unfairly makes people believe they are better fighters than they really are**.
From reading the posts, I'd say I was on the other side of things. I never got picked on much but I picked on a few people and I regret doing so. But, the GP was dead-on.....fighting back is really the only way to get out of it. Even if you only get in one good punch (make it count!). Almost always, a mutual respect will be earned and you will at least get them off YOUR back.
But martial arts is not the way to do this. Perhaps consider boxing or wrestling instead.
(**note: I realize there are SOME martial artists that are bad-asses. But the vast vast majority of high-schoolers are not in this category and unless you are, martial-arts won't help you.)
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:4, Insightful)
People have been 'psychophysically tortured' for, well, ever. That doesn't excuse it, and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be dealt with aggressively where possible. But it's like complaining about the rain or gravity. It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?
I too (this is an empty truism, just about EVERYONE can say it) was a victim of such abuse. From beatings, to humiliation, to psychological 'abuse' throughout my elementary and junior high school years, including yes, frequent principal visits and school changes.
But you know what?
I'm *convinced* that a great deal of it has to do with a 'victim' mentality. Around 10th grade: 5th school in 5 years, I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped. And before you say it: there's a GIGANTIC step from 'resolving to no longer be a victim' to 'cheerfully murdering fellow students'.
Part of the socialization process is understanding and learning social norms. It's *just* possible that you're not being picked on because you're "too smart" (a frequent excuse...if you're that smart, why haven't you figured out how to avoid the abuse?). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact.
I recommend instead that you carefully consider how much your 'individualism' is worth - at a certain point it's just narcissism anyway.
Too many people use this sort of life experience as a crutch to blame everything else on. Exaggerating the experience suggests to me that this is mentally where you're at - inflating and dwelling on it as an emotional airbag for all the shitty stuff life hands us. (You said it stopped when you were a Junior. Unless you repeated a lot of grades, you were what, 15? 16? Even assuming the 'torture' started day 1 of kindergarten, that's 10-11 years...not the "better part of 2 decades".) I'm not going to blame my lack of success with women on being bullied (is anyone as successful with them as they want to be?). I'm certainly not going to tell you my IQ as some sort of ego-assuaging self-justification for my misery.
You can blame bullies, you can blame your parents, you can blame society; whatever. YOU are the one that has to cope with your life for all 70-some years you get on this Earth, and no amount of chemical assistance or directed blame is going to change that YOU (alone) need to get along every damn day.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:4, Insightful)
But that doesn't make it right or, more importantly, just. In fact, it seems rather antethetical to the just society we're supposed to be creating; if kids aren't allowed to see what justice looks like, why would they pursue it as adults?
"I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped."
I take it this was before today's "zero tolerence" rules.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact."
No, your "it's just a fact" stance passivley condones it. Regardless of whether or not you feel the victims should just suck it up and deal with it, unprovoked attacks should not be happening in schools my tax dollars pay for.
"I recommend instead that you carefully consider how much your 'individualism' is worth - at a certain point it's just narcissism anyway."
What's the point of a republican form of government if deviation from social norms cannot be tolerated? "All individuals have rights unless they look different?"
"Too many people use this sort of life experience as a crutch to blame everything else on."
"Too many?" Got numbers?
"I'm not going to blame my lack of success with women on being bullied (is anyone as successful with them as they want to be?)."
Perhaps, but does everybody who wishes more success with women have the trust issues that a bullying victim is left with? Do you yourself push women away the more they seem interested in you, while trying to figure out what her "real" motives are, what kind of trick she's planning?
"no amount of chemical assistance or directed blame is going to change that YOU (alone) need to get along every damn day."
I see contradictions. If being too much of an individual (your view) is what causes a person to be bullied to begin with, why is showing more of this hated individual initiative the solution? And then you you pay a lot of lip service to building social structures and "belonging," but what's the point of social structures if these problems must be solved by the individual?
Really, if anybody here is having trouble dealing with past bullying, it's you: you're trying to apply irrational standards in an effort to justify the injust. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone? After all, if everybody must be responsible for what happens in their own lives, why must the victim be responsible for the actions of their assailants?
I, too, often tell myself to "suck it up and deal with it," but the results of doing so is something I would not wish on another human being, and I'm not as prepared as you are to treat it as a "one size fits all" solution to individual victims of social ills. With your admonishments of "it can't be helped," it seems that you, and not the parent, are the one taking the defeatist, "I'm the victim" attitude.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:4, Insightful)
if you never stand up for your self then you will get walked over.. that is how life is.. even if you remove the bully part once you get out in the real world if you can't stand up for your self.. you might as well give up.
My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it sooner." (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew that if any other schools in the nation were anything like mine, it was only a matter of time before somebody cracked and blew someone else's brains out. I also predicted, rather cynically (this was back in 1990-92, remember) that the media would place the blame squarely on other parts of the media, rather than on the students' brutality or the wholesale negligence of their caretakers.
If you're going to claim--as some others in this thread do--that the fault doesn't lie with the "innocent children" who were raising their fists (and sometimes worse) against their peers, then you've got to accept that the blame lies with the schools who had taken up the duty of protecting them from each other. And then all you're saying is that the Columbine folks should have shot more faculty and fewer students.
I'm a nonviolent person. I'm all for "Never start a fight, but always finish it." But having gone through what I did, I greeted the news of Columbine with gratitude and relief. I knew the massacre was so impossible to ignore that maybe--just MAYBE--it would get the schools' attention and they'd start listening when a fat kid in black clothes says he's sick of having people hit him in the back of the head every day. Most of you don't understand just how much of a difference the lives of those who died at Columbine might make in the lives of those who come after them. I'd love to be shot to death if it means that other students won't have to go through what I went through.
Klebold and Harris didn't start the fight, but--we can hope--they finished it.
And if that sounds insensitive, well, let's just say I had some really good teachers.
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:3, Informative)
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll agree that sending a kid away for being a bully is not necessarily the right thing, but its not necessarily the wrong thing either. I do recall one kid in elementary school, a bigger kid, larger and meaner than any of us (in elementary what can you possibly be that pissed off about?!) and he would routinely and randomly beat up on just about any kid, I remember one day he was walking by and I was like 'Hey man, whatsup...' just an informal greeting, he punched me right in the face, and walked away... fucking bastard... he eventually got expelled... and wasn't welcome back... that fit.
On the other hand, this bullshit we have now with the Zero-Tolerance policy doesn't allow any room for growing, its a simple matter of their word against yours, and the school district (because they cannot afford not to) acts in their best interest, not in either of the kids interest. I can't necessarily blame the schools, frivouls (spelling is horrible, sorry) lawsuits drive costs fucking skyhigh, and it doesn't stop with schools. Remember watching the move "187" with Samuel Jackson as a teacher, and the punk ass kid says something about go ahead and do whatever, he'll just sue
Anyway, enough rambling
harryk
Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine (Score:5, Insightful)
In retrospect, being an intellectual snob and a tightly wound ball of unfocused aggression didn't do much for my social life in high school. I got over it though. I learned to lie about how I felt (I always felt bad, but when someone asks you how you feel, you can't say "My life is pain" and ever expect them to ask again), and I learned to pretend to be interested in things I felt to be beneath me, and I learned to project an emotional vibe other than hostility.
It sounds stupid and fake, I admit. The thing is, when I became more bearable to other people, other people stopped actively shunning me, which made it more natural not to be a bastard all the time. This appealed to people, and some of them (against all possible previous experience) started actively seeking me out, and including me in social things.
The great social secrets for the socially inept are as follows:
1) Listen, don't talk. If you're really inept, it'll show the instant you open your mouth. Watch how other people do it. Everyone loves to talk about themselves, so ask a couple of stupid social questions, but don't just barge up and ask 'em...You need an opening. THIS IS REALLY HARD TO RECOGNIZE WHEN YOU'RE SOCIALLY INEPT. Ask for directions, or for helpful information. "Hey baby, what's your sign?/You come here often?/Etc" are all far inferior to "Hey, I've got a peanut allergy, you think this stuff is safe?/Do you know how late (insert place) stays open?" People love to be helpful, and that sort of thing is socially non-threatening.
2) Be socially non-threatening. Keep up a minimum of personal grooming, try to achieve a socially acceptable wardrobe...I know it shouldn't matter, but it does...You don't have to be super well dressed, but be above the minimum, and stay away from aggressive themes and overly-starched stuff. Casual casual casual. Don't try to lock people in a conversation; let them move off if they want to...It's much more likely that they'll talk to you again if you don't latch on to them. Remember the listen thing. Don't get too personal to quick...You may think you're connecting with a person, but don't burden them with your whole life story within an hour of meeting them. It's too intense, and they'll avoid you after.
3) Don't be afraid to screw up. It's really hard not to get keyed up when you really are desperate to talk to anyone. If you find yourself shaky and babbling, move on, and come back when you've cooled off a bit. It gets easier, and, unless you do something freakish, they won't hold it against you (or if they do, fuck 'em). Check the fringes. There are plenty of people who are also inept, and if you're not scary/overbearing/stinky they'll be glad for someone to talk to. Understand that the average person isn't any more socially adept than you are...They just lucked out and ended up being bland. Bland fits in everywhere.
4) Try not to take yourself seriously. This is hard.
5) Empathy. Try to figure what the other person is feeling. This tends to be nearly impossible for hardcore left brainers; just not wired correctly for reading other peoples emotions. This is okay. But you still need to recognize (if only on a conscious level), basic body language. The only way to do this is to watch...Reading a guide on body language is like reading a guide on art.
Social skills are 100% conformity to a standard. They're a semi-open communication protocol. Once you figure it out, you can talk to most people. Understand that you need to talk about things that interest the people you're talking to...This is hard for geeks, especially because other people seldom talk about things we're interested in. DON'T EXPECT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. You can't be the alpha geek if you're talking to non-geeks...You're just going to piss them off
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:2)
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHIIIIIIIIIILDREN!
Stupid lameness filter.
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell whether that was meant to be a rhetorical question or not. There might have been sarcasm or you might be being fatuous, I'm not sure. But just in case you were being serious, let me highlight something:
It could be said that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (responsible for the Columbine massacre) were 'countering' the bullies that harrassed them at school. An extreme example for sure, but never underestimate human flaws when it comes to such powerful emotional forces as retribution.
With that said, I've bought several of Rockstar's games which have been considered 'violent' and probably plan on buying this game too if it seems any good. I'd like to think of myself as a successful late-20-something who has played countless violent and disturbing video games, watched graphic depiction of violence in numerous movies and tv shows and also was the victim of bullying in school (weren't we all?). Yet I'm still a well-adjusted member of society, an upstanding citizen, have never committed a crime, vote, am involved in charitable works, have a good sense of morality and have no qualms with allowing my children to play violent games with morally dubious goals and watch violent movies - as long as I've deemed they're mature enough for such things. I find it is my duty to keep a constant vigil on my childrens' moral/ethical maturity and to screen/judge their input accordingly. I appreciate there being an ratings board for games and the like, but I think this should be considered simply a guide and that parents should take some god damn responsibility and take charge.
I played some brutal games and watched some horribly graphic movies while I was a kid but I had good enough parents that they knew that although those games and movies weren't the most palatable inputs, they weren't having some sort of detrimental inpact on my growth, my education or my general health/wellbeing. They understood that *I* understood the difference between movies/video games and reality. They understood that although I might be ripping someone's spine out in Mortal Kombat, I was still writing A+ history reports and still knew my sines from my cosines. I might have been going on a Redneck Rampage with my shotgun but I still volunteered at the local Salvation Army thrift store on the occasional weekend and took out the trash and brushed my teeth before bedtime.
Ratings boards should never be considered a substitute for good parenting.
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You're in your late 20s?
I'd say, Double Dragon, Ninja Gaiden, Kung Fu and Punch-Out weren't exactly like the stuff we're looking at now. Banging a hooker in a stolen car, then jumping out of the car, beating them to death with a baseball bat and taking your money back? Maybe that OTHER Konami code let you do that stuff, but I think I would have cried myself to sleep if I saw that coming from my NES.
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
And I, also, am a fine upstanding member of society who almost never actually tears someone's head off and poops down their neck-hole.
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I played that game at about 16 and lived to tell the tale. I think
Re:Doesn't seem too bad (Score:3, Informative)
Plenty of RPGs, for example Gothic2 to name one, you can kill whoever you like in that game, but if somebody notices you while doing it, a horde of bystanders will hunt you down and not leave you much of a chance to survive, game over, you have to restart from your last save. Metal Gear to name another one, while the punishment is little (lower rank in the end screen), it encourages non-lethal actions against the enemy. In America's Army you land in jail when shootin
Gee, think they changed the storyline? (Score:2)
Never about Being the bully (Score:3, Informative)
Wah? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wah? (Score:2)
To the anti-game critics: (Score:4, Insightful)
If a kid has $50 bucks to blow on the new hotness their either have their parents permission (ill considered as it may be), too much for an allowance, gainful employment, or an entry level position in a criminal enterprise. None of these is the problem of developers or retailers.
Besides, none of the GTA games come close to the sex and violence of the bible. Babykilling and incest? Check. I want to see Rockstar do a Bible game like GTA, where you can wander around brutally killing and raping anything.
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2)
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
"God's" word was written by men who say they talked to god(not a human), but noone can verify by talking to god directly, for the whole not a human reason People who talk to god and claim he responds directly are considered heretics or touched--if the Christian church could still get a way with it, said people would be burned at the stake. Th
on a side note... (Score:2)
Daughters never paid the price of their parents' misdeeds...
OT: Daughters in the Bible... (Score:2)
It's a debatable point as to whether it's a misdeed or not, but there's always the passage where Lot offered up his daughters (virgin daughters, if I recall correctly) to the rabble to persuade them to leave be the guests. Someone with a concordance or a better memory of those passages correct me or back me up?
Re:OT: Daughters in the Bible... (Score:2)
But you're essentially right; I hereby backpedal... thousands of women were not put to death all at one time for the mistakes of their parents...
Re:OT: Daughters in the Bible... (Score:2)
another interesting bible angle (Score:2)
Look, I'm no mathematician, but everytime I think about the story of Adam, Eve, etc. I can't help but wonder how we're all descendents of those two people. Did Adam and Eve's children have sex with their mom? How did our population grow from just that one family?
I hope Mel Gibson sobers up enough to turn that story into a movie. It would be cool if he'd change the story around and cast Ashley and Jessica Simpson as the two daughters (instead of the sons). Probably would make more money than his "Jews beat
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:5, Funny)
Rockstar North proudly presents: "Holy Man - Old Testament Style!"
"E" -- Content rated by ESRB -- Everyone
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2)
That would likely sell. (Score:2)
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2)
have children ripped apart by bears [biblegateway.com] for laughing at your bald head
remember nobody is to stone anyone until I say so - even if someone does say Jehova!
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2)
I actually ran an anti-bullying program in high school (went and taught elementary students about not killing each other) but I fail to see how this game will make things worse. Bullying is a huge problem in this country and parents seem too busy to blame anybody outside of the community. People need to realize that video games are not going to ma
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to admit that the content of Rockstar games is entirely different from that of The Holy Bible, both in content and presentation.
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the most important thing that the Bible teaches children is that it's not necessary to make moral decisions by thinking about the consequences of their actions; logical thought should be replaced with the supposed will of an invisible, imaginary being in the sky, as interpreted by some incredibly wacked-out people.
Instead of teaching that when you see a contradiction, you should reexamine your premises because one of them is wrong, it teaches (by example) that contradictions are everywhere, and can be resolved by a "search for a higher meaning" (divinely inspired, of course, which means making things up and stopping when it sounds good).
Instead of teaching responsibility by showing that who you are in the world is defined by your actions, it teaches that "works" are worthless, and the only thing that matters in the end is an intangible "faith" -- believe and ye shall be saved. Except when it doesn't, but see the previous point about contradiction.
When Christianity is really working its mojo, it's just as good as any other well-known cult at creating "empty" human beings, who are completely unable to function outside of its confines. But more often, it simply causes a really wicked case of "cognitive dissonance" as its adherents do their best to reconcile their "beliefs" with the reality of the world. This makes itself known as a profound sense of anguish, and the most common response is for people to submerge themselves even deeper into the religion as a response, moving further away from the real world. But a really good Crusade now and then will help, too.
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:4, Informative)
That's why he had a mob of rapists, and had to think of some way to get out of it (and made the wrong choice of throwing his daughers out - and where does it say in the bible that he was justified in doing this? My bible sure doesn't say that...). That's why his hometown was destroyed by brimstone, because it was such an abomination before God. That's (partially) why his wife died, and why he lost all his posessions... and got captured by an opposing faction of kings.
But Abraham comes along and saves his ass, cause he's a good guy, and an archetype of Christ.
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2)
People think that if we put the burden on parents they will fulfill it. That's naive.
Left Behind: The Video Game (Score:2)
Left Behind: Eternal Forces [talk2action.org].
You are a fighter with the "Tribulation Force" in New York City during the Antichrist's reign. You have a mission: convert heathen Gothamites. If you can't convert 'em, kill 'em all and let Jeebus sort 'em out. Oh yeah, you can play as an agent of the Antichrist if you want to.
This is not a joke. This is real. And it will be out in time for Xmas.
Re:To the anti-game critics: (Score:2)
It is half the way there: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/23/evangelic
All you need to do is add some raping and incest.
Anti-game critics will not be happy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anti-game critics will not be happy (Score:5, Funny)
Won't someone please think of the children?
I have to ask... (Score:2, Funny)
Rockstar (Score:2, Insightful)
Porn vs. Violence (Score:5, Interesting)
And hell, NC-17 movies exist, as do R movies (which require a parent).
So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?
I guess the question I have is... why should games NOT have such similar measures (I'm in favor of NO limitations to who can buy actually) while porn and movies do? And if you believe that games should be freely buyable, would you consider allowing porn and any rated movie to also be freely buyable? What about cigerettes and alcohol?
It seems that we keep on having specific rules/laws per each individual "substance", and many are inconsistent with each other in terms of necessity.
The last time I checked... (Score:2)
Re:The last time I checked... (Score:5, Funny)
I can think of a number of places where Black and White might be considered the most obscene game ever. Heck, the game lets you pretend to be god - what's shooting someone in the head compared to that?
Re:The last time I checked... (Score:2)
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:3, Informative)
Non-pornographic movie ratings are not government mandated; they are enforced privately. That same logic is used for games, as long as they are not pornographic.
Pornography falls under a set of laws that are similar to the laws for buying tobacco products and alcohol.
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:2)
As fo
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be assuming that porn teaches something about sex. I (sort of) agree, but what it's teaching is not very ... realistic, and what it's leaving out is important. If the goal is to make discovering sexuality less traumatizing, why not insist on good sex education?
Keeping it locked away from curious eyes doesn't keep kids from finding it, doesn't keep them from having sex if they want, and seems to just be a pointless burden for retailers.
Sure, they'll almost certainly find it; but with good education (and maybe a more sexually healthy culture?), it would not be as compelling and I expect the demand might well fall. As for the last point, I could care less what is a burden for retailers who want to sell porn to minors. Seriously, have you been in some of these shops? I don't plan to have kids, but I wouldn't send them into one.
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:2)
I do think games should be freely buyable - or at least, maintain the system of voluntary ratings that we have now. Movie ratings are also voluntary, by the way; there's no law
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:5, Informative)
The MPAA has de facto control [wikipedia.org] over most movie theatres in the US (Cinemark, etc.) through contracts (i.e. a movie theatre which shows first-run MPAA films may not show non-MPAA-certified films, or something to that effect). Thus, films must (if they want strong revenues) pretty much have to get MPAA certification (including receiving a rating) to appear in most movie theatres in the US. Additionally, movie theatres showing these films are contractually obligated, for the most part, to enforce the film ratings by MPAA requirements. There is no legality involved (pornography is a different story, of course). Thus, when you were carded by a theatre before seeing an R-rated film, it was purely based on contracts and societal pressures, not by any legal requirement to do so.
These have age requirements because it is almost incontrovertible that these substances have either a deleterious effect on one's health or influence minors negatively (and minors in particular have less maturity to deal with these effects, or make the decisions themselves).
I don't have a great argument about pornography restrictions aside from the fact that the US is a particularly prudish country in regards to sex and nudity.
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:2)
Ok so in the United States, porn is basically not legal to buy by a minor. The store can't sell it to you, and you can't rent it.
And hell, NC-17 movies exist, as do R movies (which require a parent).
So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?
A better question to ask might be, why is PORN not legal for minors to buy? After all, I am willing to bet most people here have had sex more than they have gone on shooting rampages (Ok, well this *IS* slashdot... but I digress). Yet, it is ok to
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that porn is not legal for minors to buy is stupid - as sexual education is a good thing, ignorance, is a bad thing.
I agree that the government has no place in restricting pornography. They certainly have no place writing laws with such dubious and interpretable clauses as current US pornography laws that judge whether something is restricted based upon the public opinion of some undefined "community" which has even less meaning on the internet.
That said, I think it is a fallacy to equate porn
What will our "Perversions for Profit" PSAs be? (Score:2)
It just makes me wonder what the producers of that film would have thought about the Internet
Any time I watch something like that, and I'm filled with a certain smugness ("nice job, suckers...now you can get porn everywhere!"), I wonder what sort of stuff that's on TV or the Internet today, people will be watching and laughing at in 40 or 50 years. Will it be the MPAA's "Copying DVDs is S
Re:What will our "Perversions for Profit" PSAs be? (Score:2)
Already done. Try renting "Reefer Madness" if you want a good chuckle.
(http://www.reefer-madness-movie.com/) or this: (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028346/), or here:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness_(193
Funny stuff nowdays, but at the expense of our current "War on Drugs" and associated issues.
Re:Porn vs. Violence (Score:2)
I really recommend watching the above video. The parallels between the 60s PSA and today are absolutely striking. While today legislators will argue about how "the internet has changed the paradigm" and try to enforce blocking on the internet in libraries in and schools, the 60s PSA says that "never before in the history of man have the [pornographers] had access to Mass Transit, Rapid Printing Press, Mass Distribution." Very very intriguing.
god forbid (Score:2, Funny)
Well I heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Lighten Up (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of us (at least I know I did) have that one individual who got on your nerves, lol.
Its a fun and harmless way to blow some steam, that's it. Don't read into it like it deserves
a philosopical, psychological, socialogical (or whatever) analysis. Its entertainment. Simple.
Regards,
MBC1977,
(US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)
ATTN, Jack Thompson (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with game ratings and enforcement of those ratings.
I don't think 15 year old kids should be playing bully.
but I'm 30 years old, and I want to play it.
Jocks! A real world game. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jocks! A real world game. (Score:5, Funny)
The Telstra/Gamearena mirror (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Telstra/Gamearena mirror (Score:5, Informative)
How about:
http://www.rockstargames.com/bully/trailer/bully_
http://www.rockstargames.com/bully/trailer/bully_
Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, the humor was decidedly childish, which may be the point, but it seems to be a pattern oft repeated in most Rockstar games anyways.
Truth (Score:2, Informative)
This looks good... (Score:2, Funny)
LK
Bulli Herbig (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Herbig [wikipedia.org]
Bully in the UK... (Score:3, Informative)
To be quite honest. Banning a game in the UK will lead to a LOT more piracy. People downloading off the net/buying off someone etc
And its going to make people want to play it a lot more if its banned.. Think banned films. People will always try and get it somehow to find out what all the fuss it about
Possibly an age restriction I guess. As some druggie/slightly strange in the head kids are unable to discern the difference between reality and a game.. E.g. I think it was manhunt and the kid that stabbed some other kid in a park in the UK.. And they blamed the game for that.. Not the fact he was obviously devoid of any common sense..
But for the majority.. Probably much like me.. Violent video games were a part of my childhood. But I would never think of going out and copying anything portrayed in those games. So why victimise everyone.. For the small minority who are slightly screwed in the head
So I think all the bullying websites that are complaining like little girls are helping the games publicity
Re:Sounds more interesting than before. (Score:3, Interesting)
So it sounds like one could play this game as
Re:Sounds more interesting than before. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The graphics suck (Score:2)