Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Retailers Won't Sell New Acclaim Game 748

DrEnter writes "According to this Yahoo article, Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, and Kay-Bee Toys are refusing to carry Acclaim's new video game 'BMX XXX'. Best Buy has stated it will sell a censored version of the game. Acclaim is billing it as the first major release game to feature full-action nudity, with prostitutes and pimps and main characters. A Wal-Mart spokesman stated "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it." I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart sells rated-R movies (including those arguably targeted at the same age group as this game is), so make your own judgement..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Retailers Won't Sell New Acclaim Game

Comments Filter:
  • Some places sell it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:17PM (#4449875) Journal
    There is all that Playboy and Penthouse software on the top shelf of the computer software section at Hastings...
  • What a joke (Score:4, Interesting)

    by swagr ( 244747 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:21PM (#4449900) Homepage
    Books, comics, movies, tv shows, news and games with violence are everywhere.
    Violence is OK everyone.

    A naked person, though, will destroy the fabric of society as we know it. And s*x, I won't even dare say the word.
  • by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv@nOspam.ivoss.com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:24PM (#4449919) Homepage Journal
    I beleive there were also similar efforts back in the day invlovling Leisure Suit Larry [google.com], but I doubt any of those retailers sold PC games during the 80's and early 90's when Leisure Suit Larry was at its peak. This probably the best publicity going, especially if the game isn't that good, which I can't imagine how BMX and XXX would go together well.
  • Sales ploy??? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by umStefa ( 583709 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:24PM (#4449923) Homepage
    This smells to me like a marketing ploy. Remember Showgirls?, one of the worst movies ever but by stirring up controversy the movie generated sufficent sales to be profitable.

    Since profitablity is the bottem line for Acclaim here, by getting the media to report on major chains refusing to carry the game they will probally generate more sales and hence greater profits.

  • Acclaim... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkiddNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:27PM (#4449944) Homepage
    ...is the greasy turd on the game industry. What with buying ad space on tombstones, to paying people to change their names to "Turok", to paying speeding tickets for people on their way to buy their racing game, they're scum (though all these promotions did originate in the U.K.). Plus, Acclaim is the "quick and dirty" game house - when you want your property made into a game qucikly and don't give a crap about the game being good (any South Park game, any of the Batman movie games), Acclaim will proudly take your money and make you some piece of crap in a record amount of time.

    Acclaim is to the game industry what Troma is to the movie industry.

    On a related note, does anyone know if this game will use the extremely rare "AO" (Adults Only) ESRB rating?

  • by coene ( 554338 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:27PM (#4449946)
    On some level I agree (the Tony Hawks and BMX games popularity is a little crazy -- and this takes is a step further), but on a complete different level... This game looks funny as hell.

    If you havent seen the trailer, http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=1222.

    Seriously, the trailer makes it worth a rent at minimum... What red blooded male doesent like sports + nudity + pimps + hookers + weapons.. Especially in digital form!

    Hey, the world is in moral decay.. and its only gonna get worse. This is the biggest step forward since GTA3. I say enjoy the ride.
  • Careful what you wish for... following is a list of Q and A from the Leisure Suit Larry I Quiz.

    Spoiler alert -- contains answers!!!

    "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" was recorded by c Tiny Tim
    "Where's the..." c beef?!
    A nehru jacket is b out of date
    Bourbon Street is in d New Orleans, Louisi
    Calvin Klein is c a clothing designer
    Captain Kangaroo's sidekick was d Mr. Greenjeans
    Charlie McArthy and d Edgar Bergen
    Does a pair of queens beat 3 deuces? a Yes, in Blackjack
    Herb Alpert and the ____ Brass? a Tijuana
    How many molecules are there in a glass of water? d as many as there ar [sic]
    I find computer games with adult content b acceptable
    If a physician were on an island with Bo Derek, he would thank God If Bo Derek were here, I'd ask her to d stop playing comput
    It's not nice to fool b mother nature
    Joe Dimaggio played b Baseball
    Lee Harvey killed c John F. Kennedy
    Mohammed Ali is c a professional boxe
    Peter Piper picked pickled c peppers
    Sergent Pepper was c the leader of the l
    The largest state is b Alaska
    The last name of Annette (on the Mickey Mouse Club) was c Funicello
    The most effective form of birth control is a abstinence
    The most likely place to find virgins is c St. Mary's Girl's S
    The most populous city in the US is c New York
    The result of Watergate was c Richard Nixon quit
    Utah is full of d none of the above
    When playing Monopoly you b must own 4 houses b
    Which is non-alcoholic c Perrier
    Which is not a car? d Toshiba
    Which is not a cheese? d Reisling
    Which is not a city in Mexico? c San Diego
    Which is not an American armed force? d the national league
    Which is not in Hawaii? c Fiji
    Who has not been US attourney general? b Sam Shepard
    Who is buried in Grants tomb? d Mrs. Grant
    Who was not a famous musician? d Tom Garvey
    Who was not a politician? c W.C. Fields
    Who was not an astronaut? a John Milton
    Who was the leader of Nazi Germany? d Adolf Hitler
    Who wrote "To be or not to be"? a Will. Shakespeare

    My compiments to google (as always) and Ken's cheats? [coastlight.com]

  • Re:X rated!?! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wass ( 72082 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:44PM (#4450055)
    Cool screenshot. Shouldn't be too hard to release a version with the topless girls replaced by ones wearing a scant bikini, or something similar.

    So all this hubbub is about computer-generated rendered boobs? That's hysterical. Brings new meaning to the concept of 'fake boobs' too.

  • by Danse ( 1026 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:56PM (#4450139)

    There's no reason they would have to allow kids to buy the game. They card for other things, why not this?

  • Re:Double Standard. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saxerman ( 253676 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:56PM (#4450142) Homepage
    I can sort of understand why the toy stores won't stock it, but i'm assuming walmart/bestbuy are department stores. If they sell DVD titles (movies) that are R18+ rated, why the double standard for a video game? Did these stores also refuse GTA3 and the forthcoming GTA3:vice-city for their sexual content? It seems a little contradictory to me.

    I would guess that many people have the perception that games are 'for kids' not realizing (or possibly even caring) that many gamers have grown up. As the game attempts to use nudity as a selling point many conservative retailers easily adopt the stance that they will not carry the filthy smut. Tomb Raider games feature an extremely busty main character which is prominently displayed on much of their advertisements but the word nudity or XXX isn't featured anywhere so it slips in under their good taste threshold. These same conservative retailers 'know' that R Rated movies are targeted at adults rather than children, and are therefore safe for sale regardless of content.

    This is very similar to the controversy around the first Heavy Metal movie. As an animated film parents first assume it's for kids and are shocked and disgusted to find R rated content, again not realizing (or caring) what the target audience is.

  • by KingJoshi ( 615691 ) <slashdot@joshi.tk> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:58PM (#4450152) Homepage
    This isn't these stores taking "responsibility", its them acknowledging that the parents who can't police their children properly will shove their responsibility (that of the parents) onto the store. The fact is, if parents were able to actually take care of their children, it wouldn't matter if hard-core pornography was shelved next to Barney cartoons - the kids wouldn't ever actually get access. My parents made it quite clear whenever I was not to be doing something, and when I went behind their backs I was inevitably punished. More importantly, they explained their reasons for each edict, and as a result I respected their decisions as my parents instead of resenting them blindly. Thats the lesson the stores are teaching parents: if you dont take care of your kids, we'll do it for you. Thats plain fucking lazy.

    Walmart and the other stores are doing this for their image, plain and simple. It's a business move and they don't want to lose any conservative customers. The fact they'll carry rated-R movies that contain tons of violence, sexual dialogue or nudity and not this game seems ridiculous.

    However, I would applaud any company that did such an action based upon principle (and was consistent with their actions). The fact is, most people don't have good parents. We're fortunate. So what should happen to the many kids out there without good parents? The rest of society (businesses, government, other community members) MUST raise them properly. It's our obligation to society and the kids. We need to try to educate and improve the parents, but the kids (and society) will be the ones to suffer if the rest of society doesn't take up the slack.

    Walmart isn't sending any message to the parents because the bad parents don't even know what's going on or care. They're not going to learn any lesson here from this. In this case, I disagree with Walmart, but I agree in the principle of raising others' children and preserving an image of yourself.

  • Christians LIKE sex! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anomaly ( 15035 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [3repooc.mot]> on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:01PM (#4450179)
    As a zealous Christian, (dare I admit that I might be categorized as a 'fundie' by the /. crowd?)

    I can say that I am not afraid of the human body. I like sex quite a bit, too.

    That having been said, I believe that God designed sex to be expressed in the context of an emotionally intimate committed relationship. One reference that discusses sexual satifaction survey results is here [freeyellow.com]
    Apparently Christians have higher rates of sexual satisfaction than non-Christians.

    With regard to censorship, perhaps Walmart is making decisions based on what their customers want. The marketplace is free, and I don't get up in arms when your favorite pr0n store refuses to carry Jonah [jonahmovie.com] - If you want the game, you know where you can find it - Google is your friend.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly
    BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
    If you would like to know more, please email me.
  • Typical (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fiveeight ( 610936 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:02PM (#4450186)
    This is the problem with censorship nowadays, they're too damn cunning.

    In the past, censorship enthusiasts* were dumb, and banned works of art, stuff that people could defend on quality grounds, stuff that people would get /angry/ about not being able to obtain. Who the fuck would go through a world of trouble to get this thing available in stores?

    I hate censorship, but can I actually be bothered to complain about reduced distribution for an "extreme" sports game featuring hookers? (two /seriously/ overused themes in modern games) So when they want to ban the next Thief or Deus Ex for "encouraging criminal activity" it'll be that much harder to stop them.

    *I know that Walmart not selling != censored, but you have to consider the size of the company and the number of games they shift. When multi-billion dollar companies refuse to have anything to do with controversial and "anti-social" games then it's not long until we're all playing "The Happy Little Elves(tm)(c) go to Disneyland(tm)(r)" and "DMCA Takedown: Piracy Bust".
  • Re:Acclaim... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheOnlyCoolTim ( 264997 ) <tim...bolbrock@@@verizon...net> on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:12PM (#4450260)
    There are "games" that are basically hardcore pornos that carry the AO rating...

    Tim
  • by SSJ2 Labsuit ( 513035 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:13PM (#4450268) Homepage
    Americans are a puritan bunch... and the puritans did approve of killing people (remember, they burned witches for entertainment value)... just not of sex.

    That's not strictly true. The Puritans were a somwhat repressive bunch, like most of the religious colonists of their day, but they weren't quite as prudish as their name makes them sound. They strongly disapproved of sex outside of wedlock -- but once you were married, it was a different story. They believed a healthy sex life was an important component of a successful marriage, to the point where Puritan ministers actually acted as "sex councilors" if things weren't going well! Puritans actually thought that sex was a kind of duty -- if God didn't want you to do it, he certainly wouldn't have given you such a strong sex drive.

    Compared to the "puritanical" groups we have today, the Puritans themselves were pretty sexually liberated.

    As for the killing, well, I think you're pretty much on the nail with that one. But again, that was a widespread problem. For most of human history, life was pretty cheap. Killing for various purposes was a common occurance, despite the fact that every Sunday people told each other not to do it. It is only comparatively recently that the right to life has been well respected.
  • Re:Acclaim... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkiddNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:40PM (#4450449) Homepage
    yeah, most of the games that would be considered "AO" don't bother to even get a rating. Memory serves that Phantasmagoria 2: A Puzzle of Flesh, the first PC game from a major publisher (Sierra) with frontal nudity was destined to get an "AO" rating, so Sierra used the RASC (with 0-4 ratings for sex, violence and language) to rate the game instead. The game still didn't sell or make it into too many retailers. Curiously, in subsequent re-releases (boxed with Phantasmagoria) it's rated "M".
  • by GunFodder ( 208805 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:43PM (#4450466)
    Killing and violence have been commonplace throughout history. Sex has been pretty popular too, judging from the six billion people on our planet today. Every society condemns violence. Yet many cultures that depend on sex to propagate their values treat sex as a shameful act. Who the hell pulled that manuever?

    I doubt that historically all cultures have been so prudish. What kind of organization could propagate such a ridiculous idea to so many people? Hmmm...
  • by Kashif Shaikh ( 575991 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:04PM (#4450582)
    People will do as they want. If stores didnt carry Grand Theft Auto 3, they would be losing out on a good chunk of change.

    True. Case in point: Mortal Kombat. It was censored on SNES, but not on the Sega Genesis. Sega made a lot of money and happy customers. Nintendo made a lot of angry customers, but not a lot of money.

    Money has the power to change business dynamics, and after Nintendo saw the resulting loss of sales from the censored Mortal Kombat, they didn't censor any game after that.

  • by Blkdeath ( 530393 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:17PM (#4450684) Homepage
    but it is ironic that they will usually carry games where you can KILL others but the minute you show some one naked it's vulger.
    It's a really strange, and sad state of affairs here in North America. The human body is considered something to cover up, to be ashamed of. But to kill people or speak of mass killing/death is almost acceptable dinner conversation. (Discussing the evening news is relatively commonplace, and more often than not the news involves killing of some form or another. "If it bleeds, it leads." after all).

    I'm thinking part of the reason for teenaged pregnancies and STD spreads is the taboo placed on sex.

    While I think gratuitous, promiscuous sex (hookers? Pimps?) is a little much, especially for a game intended for wide-spread use, I don't think it's any worse than maiming and killing other players.

    {insert obligatory 'video games relating to children killing people, etc.' banter here}

  • by Issue9mm ( 97360 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:35PM (#4450775)
    Y'know... one of the things I'm tired of having to do is defend the quality of Playboy articles.

    They're pretty fucking good!

    Yeah, I was lured in by the pictures, but it wasn't until I actually read an issue that I subscribed.

    Besides, if nothing else, there's a Playboy equivalent to a "Your Rights Online" kind of thing, which is worth the price of the subscription.

    -9mm-
  • Just to add.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by QueenNina ( 544235 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @11:37PM (#4451078) Homepage
    A) Toys 'R Us is a KID'S store, not marketing to horny teenage males. B) Why isn't this game rated 'Adults Only', seeing as how it contains full nudity? C) Aren't the people who want to play it going to find it even if major retailers don't carry it? I mean, how often do you guys actually go to a real-world store, anyway? And most of them have different content online anyway. If I were heading a major retail chain, I would keep it out of the store to make parents happy, and put it online so that I could actually sell it. Or sell and edited and a regular version. Something tricky like that. :) D) Why aren't there ever naked GUYS in games? Girls play games too, and I know that some of us are straight! :) Not that I would buy a naked-guy game; that's just wrong. ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:16AM (#4451240)
    Dunno, but way back in the Middle Ages the Church set up red-light districts. The theory was if you just couldn't resist those sexual desires, it was better to do it with a whore than to corrupt a virgin.

    Those were the days! Apart from that "black death" stuff and the lousy economy, of course.
  • by hirebrand ( 543514 ) <hirebrand@yahoo.OPENBSDcom minus bsd> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:17AM (#4451249) Homepage
    A Wal-Mart spokesman stated "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it."
    Ahem.

    I am a Wal Mart electronics associate.

    We carry Fallout (vulgarity, text), Die Hard (vulgarity, audio). We'll be carrying GTA4: Vice city (audio vulgarity ?).

    We carry very violent games.. (PS2) GTA3, (XBOX) Dead to Rights, the new Mortal Kombat game, (PS2) Mark of Kri, (PC) Mafia, etc etc.

    The register prompts whether the customer is 17 when you ring a [M] rated game, or [R] rated movie. I let every parent know what they're buying -- and kids don't get mature games from me. :)

  • Re:X rated!?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ajd1474 ( 558490 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:30AM (#4451317)
    I think you will find that they have already released a version without the nudity, swearing, dogs pissing and pimps. It's called, Dave Mirra BMX 2.

    So people who are offended by this game...DON'T BUY IT! :)

    The reality is that the current generation of consoles is aimed at the kids who grew up playing SNES and the like. They are now 25+ and arent going to have their young minds warped by a bit of swearing and nudity.

    Games have ratings for a reason. I still can't believe that games that portray realistic violence never cause a fuss, and yet a game which contains a bit of T&A and some swearing wont be stocked by some stores. Talk about a warped sense of reality...sheesh!
  • Re:What a joke (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kamapuaa ( 555446 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:02AM (#4451498) Homepage
    Will young men start raping girls if they see somebody naked? C'mon.

    Interesting article in last week's NY Times magazine: France has seen a large increase in gang rapes, many attribute this to the increasingly widespead avaialabilty of pornography.

    Or as an extreme example, in many Europeans countries, pedophilic books or even pictures/videos are easily available. I've read that people who could otherwise sumblimate such tendencies (as the majority of them do) get involved in sexual addictions to the material, eventually sexually abusing a child.

    Could somebody with longer time in the US please explain. I really don't get it.

    Actually, we do it just to give Europeans something to talk self-righteously about. Americans just love to hear it! What a country!

    Which is just a sarcastic way of saying: don't be simplistic. Different countries have different cultures, sensibilities, and problems, and have to deal with them differently. The US has a huge problem with guns, despite other countries having similar gun laws and rates of ownership, or even more openly violent cultures. If there weren't such differences, there would be only one universal government/moral code/religion/whatever.

    People are still having masturbating in America. Pornography [autopr0n.com] isn't really that hard to find! People still have sex a lot more in movies and TV, than in real life! And I don't think our culture is losing too much, if in order to get a game where topless women ride BMX bikes, you have to order it off Amazon.

  • mmm, I like (Score:3, Interesting)

    by user311 ( 320598 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:07AM (#4451521)
    Wow, after seeing that trailer, I was cracking up so much I think I woke other people in the house. Jeez, my rebelious side is riled up, and I just want that game now. That is too much fun. Maybe when I feel more moral and inline in the middle of the day I will regret saying this, but damn, I want that movie now.

    It just made me think during watching it. Its human nature to enjoy sex and sensational themes, yet our religious and "civilized" side just wants us to fit in some pure ideal. But the most fun is where we are right now. We are not in sheer puritan minded times, but we havent degraded to utter pathetically primitive attitudes. Were in the balance right now where we can enjoy the advantages of both ends. We arent at either extreme. So enjoy!

    Or maybe Im wrong.....
  • by enjo13 ( 444114 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:17AM (#4451562) Homepage
    Keep in mind that teenage pregnancy and the number of sexually active teenagers has actually steadily decreased over the last 50 years.

    In the meantime we have actually identified many diseases as STD's that used to be attributed to things like hygeine. Many experts beleive that the actual rate of STD contraction is way down.

    In the meantime the sexual demeanor of the nation has become steadily more liberal... Its a long process, but I think your right. There is a definite correlation between the two..

  • Re:What a joke (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:23AM (#4451590)
    I heard on one of those charlatan pop psychology radio shows (of the Dr. Laura variety) once that fathers should not allow their children to see them naked. For daughters, it is because they would be afraid of their dad's penis, and for sons it would be because they are intimidated by its size.
  • by jcenters ( 570494 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:31AM (#4451618) Homepage
    To me, it would appear that Americans are afraid of life itself. Think about it: Which is more socially acceptable? Video of someone getting shot or a video of two people fucking?

    Sex is a force that produces life. Violence is a force that induces death.

    So the overall message in our society would appear to be, "Life is bad, death is good!"

    No wonder the world is so screwed up.
  • Re:What a joke (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @02:45AM (#4451833) Homepage Journal
    You know, I once cited a study commissioned by the Nixon administration which failed to find a link between pornography and sex crimes. I was much younger then; Now I find it extremely amusing. My english teacher probably thought it was brilliant for someone who chose to argue the devil's advocate point of view to choose something from that funding source.

    Anyway, I think it IS likely to cause spontaneous stripping. People are more readily programmed by television than you think. It puts [dieoff.org] you [disinfo.com] into [ivillage.com] an [everything2.com] alpha [everything2.com] state [everything2.com]. (Boy is it hard to find reasonably reputable links about that!) As such, you are more suggestible (it is similar to the state achieved during hypnosis, though with somewhat different results here, we hope.)

    Now, am I saying that guys are going to run around raping people because they see more porn? No. In fact, some studies have shown just the opposite. If you don't make people feel guilty about sexual urges they're more likely to beat off and get all that tension out of their system. Then they can just beat women up instead of raping them, like good little Americans. Hey, it works for football stars.

    Will there be more unprotected sex? I'm sure there will be more sex, and a certain percentage of it is unprotected. So you could say yes, but probably not. Then again, if you make people horny enough they sometimes skip the protection and move right onto the beast with two backs phase of the evening.

  • Re:What a joke (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:27AM (#4451985) Homepage Journal
    I live in the UK. On Sunday night Channel 4 showed A Clockwork Orange at last - first time on UK TV (other than cable). Very good movie.

    Plenty of violence and nudity and drugs and the old in out in out.

    What did my partner say at the end? "Was there any need for all those tits? Kubrick was a dirty old man wasn't he! No dicks though you notice!"

    No mention of the hefty doses of violence, sinister political activities, etc... just "why so many tits"

    Why do I mention this? Because I think the whole anti-nudity thing boils down to guys not wanting to see other guys dicks on the TV.

    The latest thing to stir up the tabloid is Tipping the Velvet, a BBC period costume drama with healthy doses of girl on girl lesbian action. Complaints to the BBC are all about how LITTLE action there was. Safe. No guys. Everyone wants to watch!

    Equality values are so live, especially in my neck of the woods, that any unequal representation is offensive - particularly if its seen to exploit the ladies. For many, the glimpse of boobs in Fifth Element is more offensive than 'that scene' in Reservoir Dogs. Simply because of the exploitation.

    Also, nudity is often surplus to the plot. Shooting someone in the face brings the plot along, because that character is now dead. Seeing some chicks ass doesn't move the plot alon in the same way most of the time. It's just eye candy. So its easier to look down on and condemn. Which film would make more sense if you saw a penis in it? Which would make less sense without the tits? Without the guns? without the swearing?

    Personally - I'd throw it all in and let people make and show what they want. Clockwork Orange was a good film. Fifth Element was not. Nothing to do with the tit count, gun count, or how many times a big guy says 'Shit!' as someone comes into shot.
  • by cenobita ( 615440 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:40AM (#4452012)
    interestingly enough, each and every one of these retailers comes out as a hypocrite in this.

    just yesterday, i walked into wal-mart and bought a copy of GTA3 for PS2. no ID, no huge warning label, nothing. here we have a game that caused such a huge furor, with it's mass amounts of violence and criminal themes, not to mention hookers, pimps, and drugs..purchased from a company that has, time and again, supposedly "put their foot down" on this kind of thing.

    $10 bucks says that if this game gets popular, you can expect to see retailers who once claimed they would never tolerate that kind of thing, stocking it in droves to get a slice of the profit. this whole issue comes down to profitability and giving a good marketing face. if the game doesn't look like it's going to be a big seller, it's easy to say "we won't carry this!", because nobody gives a shit either way. turn the tables, though, and not carrying it means a large loss of potential profits.

    i can't think of a single retailer who would actually stand behind a claim of morality even at the risk of losing a lot of money.

    to finish this, though: i don't think the game looks all that entertaining, nor does the prospect of full nudity really appeal to me. if i want to look at naked women, i'll rent a frickin' porno..not a BMX game.

  • Re:What a joke (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BoBaBrain ( 215786 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @07:07AM (#4452418)
    Which film would make more sense if you saw a penis in it?

    "The crying game" and that is why they could show "it".
    You still don't need any excuse to show unfettered T-shirt potatoes.
  • by Ironpoint ( 463916 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @08:07AM (#4452527)
    Thats how it works in life because of the survival instinct.

    Killing promotes survival. Being able to kill well means better survival. Survival is good. What do we have soldiers for? To kill for us. However, killing is only ok to a person if it promotes their personal survival. Killing terrorists ok, killing schoolchildren BAD, Killing someone elses schoolchildren, not as BAD (unfortunately). Killing my dentist is BAD for me, killing someone elses dentist, "Who cares"

    (Note, I don't condone killing, The above is just an example of inner subconscious thought)

    On the other hand, People who oppose nudity have instictive fear it may hamper their ability to mate. If we were at a more primitive level, the same male humans that won't tolerate nudity in front of a crowd, would screw like bunnies given a naked female all to themselves with no one knowing about it.

    Churches should be call social pressure concentrators. Sex is really the cardinal sin in religion. I would go as far to say it is the fundamental reason the human mind has created churches. The goal is to lock other "competitors" out of the gene pool. Then we find at the top of these organizations a systematic characteristic of sexuality far beyond the norm, such as molestations or harems in some cultures. The fact that David Koresh molested the females in his cult was by design. The fact marriages are (in conservative environments) carried out (approved) by religious leaders in churches is by design.

    Sex is more rewarding when done on the sly, because If its opposed by church/angry father/husband then that means that the person is winning the survival of the fittest battle to "spread it around".

    "So the message to the youth... making love is bad. Killing is good."

    Well, the subconscious message is "The less nudity you see the more likely you won't mate, upping my chances, Killing is good as long as your killing for me or someone who helps me survive"

  • Re:Acclaim... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkiddNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @09:37AM (#4452871) Homepage
    As a response to you and the rest who keep bagging on what a horrid game this is, and how Acclaim only releases crap, I have the following:

    Shut the hell up.

    You're right in the respect that one shouldn't diss a game they haven't played. Look at the number of people who dissed Daikatana without playing it (for the record, it wasn't that bad). I for one might even rent or play this game, but being married I catch enough flack that all games are "evil fucked up bloody shit", I don't need the words "with nudity!" tacked on to the end of it.

    To me (and I know this will open up a big can of worms), this game is like PC Accelerator, which was a decent magazine on its own merit, but it's like they woke up one morning and said "Titties sell! Let's put them on every cover!". Don't get me wrong, I love boobies, but to me, taking something that has nothing to do with gaming and placing it on the cover to appeal to the lowest common denominator is stupid. Acclaim woke up one morning and said "man, it would sell so much more if we put titties in it....and swears! Lots of swear words!" I'm glad most retailers won't sell it - if it sold well it would just encourage this sort of thing (witness the Deer Hunter phonomena we're just starting to see the end of).

    And you're right, Acclaim doesn't only release crap. Turok 2 comes to mind as one of the better games I've ever played. But Acclaim is guilty of running it into the ground (look at how bad every Turok game since has been).

    they are definitely kicking ass in marketing
    This is only true if you subscribe to the notion that there's no such thing as bad publicity and being unpopular is more important than being indifferent.
  • by pmz ( 462998 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @10:55AM (#4453343) Homepage
    Sex is really the cardinal sin in religion.

    Not all religions. I believe that some Taoist/Buddhist sects regard sex as a spiritual exchange of Yin and Yang between male and female partners. In their philosophy, it actually makes very good sense.

    It is really a Christian/Islamic oddity in the world that nudity and sex are so taboo.
  • by TomServo ( 79922 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:37PM (#4456246)
    http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html?PID=1051868& ctid=19&ls=default

    I realize their website is not the store, but I really don't feel like driving down Pico in lunchtime traffic to go find this out for you. Either way, it's Kay-Bee Toys selling GTA3.

    In addition, eToys.com was bought by Kay-Bee toystores after their bankruptcy in January of 2000. Bastards didn't even use the code we wrote either, though they did pay a whole lotta money for it ;) They're selling GTA Vice City along with kbtoys.com.

    http://www.etoys.com/genProduct.html?PID=1891839 &c tid=19&ls=vgames

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...