Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Officer's Group Calls for Ban On 25 To Life 148

Posted by Zonk from the it's-offensive-all-right-offensively-bad dept.
Kotaku reports that the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is calling for a boycott of 25 to Life. From the post: "It is absolutely unconscionable that game makers are enabling young people--or anyone--to dramatize shooting and killing as a form of entertainment while officers and innocent people are dying in real-life on our streets every day. We're encouraging parents, caregivers and everyone who is concerned about both law enforcement officers and children to ensure this game never makes it into the homes or hands of impressionable young people."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Officer's Group Calls for Ban On 25 To Life More

Officer's Group Calls for Ban On 25 To Life

Comments Filter:

  • Why dramatize it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:12PM (#14540381)
    When you've got the real thing available online?

    http://ia300831.eu.archive.org/3/items/al-jaishul- [archive.org] islami-baghdad-sniper/al-jaishul-islami-baghdad-sn iper-70mb.rmvb

    Seriously, isn't this sort of thing how Arnie got rich...and into office?

  • Curse these games! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dubl-u ( 51156 ) * <2523987012 AT pota DOT to> on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:12PM (#14540384)
    Yes! These games are an outrage. In my youth we had good, clean, wholesome fun. We kids ran around outside and played, uh, Cops and Robbers.
    • Or Cowboys & Indians (while smoking candy cigarettes).
      • we prefered cops and drug runners. complete with little baggies full of sugar or flour. when we got older we went to a wooded area and used paintball guns... ...fun
    • Yeah but in those times, it was just "I shoot you, you die", not "I shoot you and watch as " (insert graphical description of a man's death, with guts and everything).

      • Re:Curse these games! (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah but in those times, it was just "I shoot you, you die", not "I shoot you and watch as " (insert graphical description of a man's death, with guts and everything).

        Yeah, heaven forbid that children should see that violence is violent. Better that they grow up thinking that violence is just a blip on a radar screen. I'm sure that comfortable veil of ignorance will result in our children making smarter political decisions in the future.
      • No cg will ever live up to our imaginations.
      • Either way it's make believe.


        Get over it!

      • Re:Curse these games! (Score:3, Informative)

        by iocat ( 572367 )
        Maybe things were different in my neighborhood, but we would often stage elaborate, drawn-out, death sequences... ideally including falling from a tree if a pile of leaves were available. Of course, we also had the "other guy" rule (as in "right now I'm a different guy, shoot me," or "you be another guy for a second so I can shoot you."), so we weren't really killing each other...

        That all aside, the group seems to be calling for a BOYCOTT of the game, not a BAN on the game, which are two very different thi

    • Re:Curse these games! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Surt ( 22457 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:36PM (#14540694) Homepage Journal
      I think the difference was that in that game, the robbers were portrayed as the bad guys.

      • Mod parent up. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Valdrax ( 32670 )
        I was thinking the same thing. In the old kids game, you ran around saying, "Bang!" and "missing" a lot. The good guys were the only ones allowed to shoot and win, and the bad guys played out losing with child-like melodrama. Only the cops would win, and then you'd switch sides so that you could be the good guys and win.

        This game's a little nastier with no clear morality, actual graphic death, and a glorification of the "thug life." I'm not sure that I'd support a ban on it, but no one can really sanely
        • You must have grown up in a different time and neighborhood than me if the cops always won when you played.
          • I didn't say the cops won, I said the cops were the good guys.

            • Re:Mod parent up. (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Again, different neighborhood.

              If we learned anything from the second Rodney King trial, cops will lie to avoid liability for their violent action. In other words, cops are not always the good guys. They are as capable of being criminals as you or me, and they have a lot more protections from being caught/prosecuted than you or me. I wish they were the good guys, but that simply is not the case. There are far too many counterexamples, even with the protections.
              • the LAPD may have been the bad guys, but i'd hardly call Rodney King the good guy.
                • the LAPD may have been the bad guys, but i'd hardly call Rodney King the good guy.

                  So, if a police officer feels a man/woman is bad they can do whatever they like?

                  • Don't be an idiot. That's not what he was saying -- the actual fact of the matter is that, while the LAPD officers were obviously in the wrong to have beaten the crud out of him, Rodney King was not the saint he's commonly held up to be. He was driving 115MPH while drunk and with two other people in the car.

                    There's no excuse for what happened, but there seems to be this public misconception that the LAPD just grabbed King out of church one morning to beat the shit out of him.

                    According to the Wikipedia artic
                    • I'm not "blaming the victim" in any way, only pointing out the rather unpleasant truths that some people seem rather keen to buff over.

                      Rodney King wasn't deserving of or responsible for getting beaten up. However, he was deserving of getting arrested and being taken to jail.

                      People with an axe to grind against the police and the LAPD in particular like to retell the story without mentioning the situation that led up to it. I feel that if you're going to discuss the incident, you need to mention all the facts
              • The question is not how they are in real life, but how they were portrayed in the game. Cops are quite clearly not always, and IMO not even more often than not the good guys. But the question is who is the good guys in the cops-and-robbers game played by children.

              • Re:Mod parent up. (Score:3, Insightful)

                by QuantumG ( 50515 )
                And why arn't they? Why do so many cops become cynical and lose sight of why they joined the police force in the first place? IMHO it's because they are called upon daily to enforce laws they don't believe are reasonable or all that important. Primarily, they spend so much of their time policing what people can and can't put into their own bodies.

        • Re:Mod parent up. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Landshark17 ( 807664 )
          I'm not sure that I'd support a ban on it, but no one can really sanely offer that this is good, clean, kid-friendly fun.

          I agree with you on that. Would you allow a five year-old to play GTA? That's like asking a if a five year-old should be able to see "Reservoir Dogs."

          The game rating system needs an overhaul, and parents need to take more of an interest in what their kids are playing, because there seems to be this wierd double-standard. Parents don't mind that little Timmy is buying GTA, because it's

          • Re:Mod parent up. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ElleyKitten ( 715519 )
            >>>The game rating system needs an overhaul, and parents need to take more of an interest in what their kids are playing, because there seems to be this wierd double-standard. Parents don't mind that little Timmy is buying GTA, because it's just a game and games are harmless kid's stuff, but then they get completely shocked when they find out what's in GTA.

            The game rating system doesn't need an overhaul, parents need to actually look at the ratings.

          • Computer games started out innocently enough and most were kid-friendly, and that stigma still follows all games around, which is why people yell so loud when they find this kind of extreme content.

            Games have always had extreme content. They just haven't had as good graphics as nowadays.

            Heck, even in Pac-man the theme was eat or get eaten.

        • The difference is that games like this aren't intended for kids. They are intended for young adults like myself who grew up on video games and who still play them semi-regularly. Why villify this game and not similar movies like Get Rich Or Die Tryin?

          I really wish people would get over this misconception that video games are only for kids.

          I also wish groups like this would get over theirself and stop trampelling all over people's free speech rights.
          • I really wish people would get over this misconception that video games are only for kids.

            I wish that people would get over their misconception that many parents won't end up buying this game for their kids. However, like I explicitly said, I don't support a ban on the game. The poster I was promoting and I were attacking the notion that this game is no different from kids playing "cops and robbers," which it is clearly an adult send-up of.

            (Also, where have you been? People have been complaining about G [bbc.co.uk]
            • Yeah, I apparently was also one who got confused between the headline and the actual wording in the article. I blame the writer of the article for apparently not knowing that there is a clear distinction between ban and boycott. I also blame myself for just quickly scanning the article since I was at work.

              The Get Rich Or Die Tryin jab was my subtle attempt at trying to add some humor. Either way, my point still stands that the MA rated game should be treated no differently in the stores than an R rated m
        • <i>This game's a little nastier with no clear morality, actual graphic death, and a glorification of the "thug life."</i>
          <br><br>
          Hmm, just like real life. No clear morality, actual death, glorification of the "thug life" through higher wages. Thats how poor our society is.
        • "This game's a little nastier with no clear morality, actual graphic death, and a glorification of the "thug life." I'm not sure that I'd support a ban on it, but no one can really sanely offer that this is good, clean, kid-friendly fun." Well then it's a good thing this game(25 to Life) is rated M for mature(17+) and definitly not ment for kids then isn't it?
      • Well said.

        I think that we're missing the point by focusing on the "violence" aspect of games. I think the impact of violence on children is mostly overstated, while at the same time nobody wants to go after the real problem: that we as a society (particularly in entertainment) have become fixated recently on the glorification of antisocial behavior.

        It's not a totally new phenomenon -- I think the anti-hero has always had a strong place in American culture -- but I think there is a difference between the glo
    • In that game, you chose which side you were, and changed sides from time to time, and imagined the entire scenario.

      In this game, you're stuck hating cops the whole time, and given plenty of extracultural inputs to help you do that.

      There's a difference between make-believe and indoctrination.
      • "There's a difference between make-believe and indoctrination."

        Exactly, these games are make-believe.
      • In this game, you can play as either cops or robbers. How are you "stuck"?

        Also, I strongly doubt any game can make you hate or love a specific group. If you hate cops, don't blame the game.

        Indoctrination indeed.
        • Also, I strongly doubt any game can make you hate or love a specific group. If you hate cops, don't blame the game.

          I strongly agree.

          I think the biggest contributor to bad attitudes towards cops isn't video games, it's making them enforce a lot of bullshit laws. Pretty much everybody in the US grows up dodging the law through underage drinking, smoking marijuana, or driving a bit above the speed limit. It doesn't help that some cops seem to be pretty high-handed with their power.

          One of the things I love aski
          • Personally, my bad attitude toward cops comes from having been inexplicably whacked by their nightsticks in Santa Monica, California. Having brown skin was my crime. But your point about them having to enforce bulls**t laws is well taken. I might not like the fire dept. so much if they went from bar to bar ticketing people who smoke too close to the entrance, and fined me for not replacing my smoke detector battery. The cops, on the other hand, waste their time and my money protecting me from myself (drug
    • A ban on any book, movie, or video game is an unequivocal violation of the first amendment. They can restrict it to non-minors, but any further restriction will be struck down by the supreme court easily.

  • Good luck with that, officer. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:13PM (#14540392) Homepage Journal
    My fellow ghosts and I have been protesting Pac-Man for over 25 years, and we're still not safe from being eaten by some random gamer kid on the street.

  • Boycott / ban (Score:4, Informative)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:14PM (#14540419) Journal
    The FA correctly notes that the call is for a boycott, but the headline there refers to a "ban" instead. Bizarrely, the submitter decided to use the body's correct wording in his body and the headline's error in his header.
    • Which tells me that that was done by an editor that was sensationalizing it.
      • Ban, boycott... what's the difference? The editorial position on the importance of the English language has been obvious long before the article posted last week that basically said, "words don't count".
    • Nice find there... the spin in the titled was evidently used to try to incite the usual slashdot emotions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a boycott, and I applaud them for using that route rather than a ban, as the title suggested. Excellent use of their first amendment rights. I don't, however, believe games such as this make for violent children, or "numb" them to the idea that killing people is ok. Now, as I log out of SWG, I'll be grabbing my lightsaber and taking out anyone without an imper

    • Re:Boycott / ban (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cyber0ne ( 640846 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:33PM (#14541336) Homepage

      I was wondering the same thing. Talk about needing to mod a story (or at least a headline) -1 Flamebait, sheesh.

      By calling for a boycott, they leave the actual decision in the hands of the parents/guardians/game-buyers. As a community, this is precisely what we want. No absurd laws or regulations, just a group of concerned individuals advocating that people think about what they're buying before they buy it.

      Sounds good to me.

  • In other news... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by jclast ( 888957 )
    In a related story, flying turtle things the world over are calling for a ban on all Super Mario games.
    • Are you kidding? SMB is the best thing that ever happened to us. People now believe they can stop us by jumping on our impenetrable shells. Boy are they in for a surprise. Hahahahaha...

  • So what is it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:16PM (#14540436) Journal
    Both the summary and TFA seem to confuse a boycott with a ban. But they're not the same. The NLEOMF only seems to be calling for a boycott, or for what might be called "discretionary purchasing." I didn't see anywhere in their statement where they called for it to be illegal or impossible to buy the game. So TFA's complaint that "they shouldn't be able to dictate what I play. What's next, a ban on all movies depicting violence against police?" and the summary are pretty unfair to the organization, and are probably just flamebait.

  • Guess they never saw Postal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:17PM (#14540444) Homepage

    Postal really started this genre many years ago and created a stir. This is just the next target from crazy parent groups and surely not the last. If they would spend as much time with their kids, maybe they wouldn't be so messed up!

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • And maybe if game designers spent as much time designing innovative new genres and subjects rather than doing another "lets kill people motherfucker!" style games to get the tabloid press coverage, we would all be a lot happier.
      The real idiots in this story are the people who think this is a good idea for a game. Ultra violence is the last resort of the clueless designer.
    • Do you really think you're going to replace religious thought with atheist ascendency with a site like "Religious Freaks"? Yes, having posters of the Virgin Mary wanted for arson and boxing photos of Jesus is the best way to prove the superior, rational nature of the atheist stance.

  • Hmm. (Score:2, Informative)

    by velocipenguin ( 416139 )
    It looks like the original wire service report included various bits of unpleasant information from the Brandon Vedas [nydailynews.com] incident. That's some astoundingly sloppy reporting.

  • Isn't the game rated MA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arakon ( 97351 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:22PM (#14540512) Homepage
    Meaning its for older individuals? Not impressionable children? I'm not going to buy the game because it looks like a drole rehash, but keeping it out of the hands of children? The industry already did their duty with its rating. Now Parents need to do theirs and not buy the damn game for their kids. YOu don't give porn to 12 year olds, why would a game be any different. People need to wake up and realize just because its a game doesn't mean its suitable for children. I'm always astounded at what I see parents buying for their children in the games section.

    It may be my opinion, but a parent that buys their kids this type of game probably wouldn't blink about giving said child a copy of Mien Komf(sp?: Hitler AutoBio) or a terrorist's manifesto because THEY NEVER READ WHAT IT IS! How damn difficult is it to LOOK at the content you are giving your children. Hell if you want to buy this game and you think your child can handle the adult subject matter and you want to take the time to discuss it with your child, fine by all means that is your right as a parent. It just drives me nuts to see all the irresponsible parents who think its everyone elses job to police their children.

    Oh I understand you'll never be able to controll all that they see, but in my mind you should make a damn good effort to make sure they understand what they see and the consequences.
    • Thank you for putting into words what I've thought for as long as I've been old enough to understand the concept.

      It should be added, that parents need to have the balls to do their job and say no. When the child asks, "Why not?" understand that, "Because I said so," is not a response that teaches anything. The only thing that accomplishes is the child thinking, 'It's fun and Mom/Dad doesn't want me to have any fun.' resulting in a child that has no understanding of logic or reason.
      • I can't wait to see how this generation that has grown up on video games handles their children playing video games. It'll be very educational for our society.
  • Instead of boycotting the game (though reasonable) and seeking to remove it from stores (something of a free speech issue?), why don't they spend more effort on supporting the ESRB rating system and its enforcement? They should do that if they're really focused on keeping it out of the 'hands of impressionable young people'.

  • I'm in! (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by caffeination ( 947825 )
    I'll certainly be boycotting this cookie-cutter crime game. It's $GameTypeoftheWeek with $Gimmick7654 added in - GTA with a pick-sides dynamic.
    This is one gaming fad I've had 100% enough of, and I'm actually beginning to worry about the effect that this saturation marketing of crime games might be having on the many, many kids that are getting these games bought for them.
    I hate these "OMG THINK OF THE KIDS" bandwagons, but to be blunt, fuck these game companies with their bullshit megaviolence crime tripe

    • Altavista came up with "The Slashdot is a giant wheel, but it is not a diversion park". That does not look right :-)

      What's it mean - what did you intend? Just curious...

  • Astounding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:25PM (#14540559)
    It is absolutely unconscionable that game makers are enabling young people--or anyone--to dramatize shooting and killing as a form of entertainment while officers and innocent people are dying in real-life on our streets every day

    So, I assume you'll get right onto boycotting the show COPS, right? Because it dramatizes pursuit and police brutality as a form of entertainment while civilians and innocent people are being arrested in real-life on our streets every day.

  • Protesting killing? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sierpinski ( 266120 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:29PM (#14540609)
    It would be impossible to even consider trying to quantify the number of media titles (games, movies, etc.) where killing has taken place. Of course I don't condone any type of real life murder, including the killing of peace/police officers. I do, however, wish to retain my right to play whatever the hell I want to play.

    One thing that groups like this don't know or don't consider, is that the people who commit these heinous crimes are not the normal average everyday kids. If they have any type of mental instability that allows the line between reality and fantasy to blur enough to think that committing the crimes they see in these games is okay, then there is a word for that. Its called predisposition. Its not the games that is causing these violent crimes. I was playing GTA: San Andreas last night, where one of the missions I had to do was to rob a bank and a betting store. I successfully completed both missions, and guess what? This morning I woke up, ate my breakfast, took my kids to their babysitter, came to work, and so far have had a very productive day. Not once did the idea of robbing a bank or a betting store enter my mind, because I know the difference between real and fantasy. Those people who commit these crimes then blame video games or movies for them are either mentally ill, or they are just trying to find a scapegoat. Personally I feel that anyone that has the "mental" capability to actually take another person's life in cold blood has a mental defect, regardless of what the courts say. I'm not saying that these people should not go to prison, but I'm saying that thats not normal behavior.

    I respect police officers and the dangerous job they do. I have several in my family, and have gone along on ridealongs with quite a few. I know all about the training they have, and the day-to-day dangers they can endure. However I do not feel that anyone has the right to tell me what I should and should not be able to play. One might say "Where can the line be drawn"... However given the history of 'cops and robbers', 'cowboys and indians', etc that I was bombarded with growing up, I don't think this is really any different, AS LONG AS the person playing these games is mentally fit to differentiate reality from fantasy. Do I feel that people should undergo mental testing to purchase a game? No. However I do feel that people need to stop blaming the games and movies and start putting the blame where it probably lies the most: On the parents. Parents need to teach their kids right and wrong, they need to teach their kids whats real and "make-believe". If they can see that their kid can't tell the difference between tv and real life, they need to seek professional help. I'm sick and tired of people blaming the game companies when its usually the parent's fault.

    Children aren't born with an inherent understanding of good, evil, right,or wrong. They need to be taught these ideas. This is way before school, and rests entirely on the shoulders of the parents.
  • I do appreciate the feelings that a widow of a policeman must feel when seeing violence against police glorified - or somewhat justified, as it may be. Or the feelings of a policeman who is patrolling the streets every day, in fear of being attacked. A very real fear in some cases.

    That said, this game just represents the view of one group of people. Probably not even that. Art (in a broad sense) has always tried to provoke us, to try our morals, feelings and values. A Clockwork Orange is probably the most

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by max born ( 739948 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:31PM (#14540638)
    The images are wrong. The messages are wrong. And stocking it in U.S. stores is wrong.

    And perhaps banning it is also wrong.

    What's so different about violence in video games as opposed to violence in books, movies, TV, etc.? And what about all those shootout games kids play with toy guns? Why not ban those?

    Millions of kids watch/participate in entertainment that contains violent content and millions grow up to be law abiding citizens. These guys don't have any evidence of a connection with games and real life. They just don't like the content and want to enforce their preferences on everyone else. Shameful.
    • Because the video game industry doesn't donate millions to political causes, or endorse candidates, etc. It is time that the video game industry start ponying up and purchasing candidates, like the movie industry does.
    • They just don't like the content and want to enforce their preferences on everyone else. Shameful.

      If you RTFA, you'll find that despite the headline and the protestations of the author, the group is actually just encouraging people to exercise their freedom not to buy this game. They don't appear to be trying to enforce anything.

  • Success (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ian Peon ( 232360 ) <ian AT epperson DOT com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:33PM (#14540657)
    A good friend of mine has been working on this game for some time. 25 to life (for the Google challenged) clearly isn't designed to appeal to parents and police officers, but more to the people who would like to rebel against them. Therefore, I think this bodes well for the success of this game.

    No, I won't let my kids play it - at 3 and 5 yo, they're still working through the "Clifford the Big Red Dog" games. When they're closer to 18, I'm sure we'll discuss the VR headsets to augment the latest round of violent video games, but for now, nope.

    I used to play Lazer Tag with my friends at night around our high school. It was fun and sometimes a huge adrenaline rush. It made it very clear to me that I never want to be in a firefight - I lost way too often, which in RL is defined as "more than once".

    • 25 to Life [www.25tolife] for, I guess, the link challenged.
    • It made it very clear to me that I never want to be in a firefight - I lost way too often, which in RL is defined as "more than once".

      Actually, I'd prefer not to be on the losing side of a firefight even once. More than once is, well... overkill. Literally.

      The trick with these things is to cajole, trick, bully, bribe, deceive or persuade others into going into firefights on your behalf. Cf. Messrs. G. W. Bush and A. R. P. Blair in their recent disputes with Messrs. S. Hussein and O. B. Laden.

  • boycott, not ban. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by freidog ( 706941 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:34PM (#14540672)
    Nice missleading headline though.
    No one in the article mentions banning the game, other than the author who apprently postulates that the next logical step is banning all movies that depict violence against police, showing that he profoundly missed the difference between ban and boycott.

    I'm going to be boycotting this game as well, not because I think virtual depictions of killing cops and the innocent are wrong, but because I think that like most games relying soley on offensive and gruesome content, this game will be terrible to play.

    If you want to not buy the game based on 'moral' grounds, good for you. Don't take the Jack Thompson road to raving lunacy and I really can't take issue with this kind of protest; other than to say I think it defeats its own purpose. Controversy, and complaint is a substitute for the marketing budget in these kinds of games. This is a fairly small, niche (Adults only rating if I'm not mistaken), low quality, no class game; and leaving to flounder in obscurity would do more harm than a nationally publicized boycott.
  • "The officers suggest a list of Healthy Titles for players to enjoy. The list includes titles such as 'Whack-A-Coon', 'Which Towelhead Is The Terrorist' (the answer is all of them) and the highly controversial 'MLK Assassination Simulator.'"
  • ..dramatizing something helps PREVENT it in the real world. Their boycott is more likely to do harm than good.

    When will people wake up and pay attention to the fact that freedom of speech is a good thing. The more prevalent the bad things are in media, the more they are thought about and the logical end of that thought is that they are bad things and we shouldn't do them. These people think of the general public as thoughtless automatons who do whatever they see. Thats simply not how humans work. Video
  • It's a boycott, so... ...the boycott amounts to not buying that which the boycotters would not have bought anyway.

    M'kay,

    • the boycott amounts to not buying that which the boycotters would not have bought anyway.

      There's nothing wrong with being informed.br>
      I wonder how many parents buy games for Joe Sixpack Jr. without knowing what they're buying? The title itself doesn't throw up many warning flags to concerned parents.
  • Why not boycott the game just because it's completely terrible? http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbx/25to life [metacritic.com] Seems like that would be more effective.
    • The single player sucks, but the online play is a lot of fun. I think the fact that this game is 17+ and parents boycotting the game improves the online playing experience, because it has kept all young troublemakers out of the game - this game doesn't have half the retards online that most games have.

  • I know that the posting said 'ban' and the article actually discusses a boycott, but even the NLEG's language is pretty unreasonable:

    "It is absolutely unconscionable that game makers are enabling young people--or anyone--to dramatize shooting and killing as a form of entertainment while officers and innocent people are dying in real-life on our streets every day."

    How is it unconscionable to dramatize this when we have critically acclaimed films which do the same thing (for example, Quentin Tarantino's

    • How is it unconscionable to dramatize this when we have critically acclaimed films which do the same thing (for example, Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs). Do we hold video games and movies to different standards?

      I have two answers to this:

      1. Fighting a battle they can win: The common myth that most video games are for the under age crowd makes it easy for those not in the know to blunder and assume that if the parent hasn't seen the material they'll suddenly be shocked at the mere concept. In the case

      • It appears that these aren't your arguments, and you're just replying based on your understanding of the situation...so if my remarks sound argumentative, I may not be arguing with you, but the argument itself -- for discussion's sake.

        1. Fighting a battle they can win: The common myth that most video games are for the under age crowd makes it easy for those not in the know to blunder and assume that if the parent hasn't seen the material they'll suddenly be shocked at the mere concept. In the case of th

  • This sort of rhetoric is found to be dressed up in The Emperor's New Clothes in light of the "recruitment tool" America's Army.
  • the best thing the police officer's group can do about this game is to ignore it and not give it free advertising. With the atrocious reviews it's been getting http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbx/25to life [metacritic.com] it would stand to reason that this game won't have a very long shelf life without heavy promotion.
  • A ban and a boycott are worlds apart. No wonder people are up in arms about stuff like this when our favorite editors can't even make sure that a story isn't misrepresented in the title.
  • ... movies and rap music?
  • I haven't even heard of this game before this media-stunt. Better go tell my mom I want it for my birthday
  • ...but of course, the army is aloud to peddle America's Army as a recruiting tool. Granted that all officers of the law are (in a perfect world) examples of law and order and are respected (mostly) in the community, but people die everywhere all of the time. Death is a reality in a world such as ours. That doesn't justify violence, but it doesn't exclude games from being made because they're violent. I wonder how many officers have clothing that kids died trying to make in a sweatshop? It's just selective d
  • "Ban" means proscribing the game by law so that noone could obtain it. This would be a patent and offensive violation of the constitutional right to free speech. As such it makes for a noticable headline.

    "Boycott" means that people who agree with them shouldn't buy it for themselves or others. It is a) legal, b) more likely, c) unsurprising, and d) less likely to generate pagehits.
  • It is baffling that adults are so self-righteous about artificial violence in video games while in real life they are doing a damned good job of teaching their children that violence [goarmy.com] is a great way [wikipedia.org] to solve [cia.gov] your problems. [cia.gov]
  • ... here I was thinking a police organization was against a certain length of sentence...

    Jaysyn
  • is because it fucking sucks ass. One of the worst games to come out in the last 5 years. Its like max payne without the fun.
    • way to quote Gamespot [gamespot.com] word-for-word -- have you even played the game? single player is fun yet short...the story is crap...multiplayer, however, is always nice does anyone have any original ideas anymore? i'm beginning to think i'm the only one. if its not gamers who just sqwak tripe thats been told tho them, its the parents, cops, politicians, etcetera blaming crap games for some guy killing some dude when he's 15 he's hated since he was 10
  • Thought I would give it a shot this weekend. Was thinking it was going to be fairly open ended where you can choose between being the law or breaking it. That was pretty much too much to hope for, each time one of these urban crime games come out I hope the people making it take more from GTA:SA then just gangstas bustin caps instead of gameplay and other elements that make the GTA series so good. But of course in 25 to lifes case its just a crappy game with thugs.

    One day we might see some developer
  • I bet the kids that are out on the streets everyday in their gangs, stealing and dealing drugs, aren't going home at night and getting their kicks by playing these games. The people who play these games are the ones with time on their hands and money in their pockets. Those copkilling gangs are out doing crap, not sitting on their couches playing the newest game.

    I would like to see the stats on how many people (say 13-25) who play violent video games actually try to recreate the scenarios IRL.
  • It is absolutely unconscionable that restaurants are enabling young people--or anyone--to dramatize eating as a form of entertainment while poor and innocent people are starving in real-life in african villages every day. We're encouraging parents, caregivers and everyone who is concerned about both the third and first world to ensure this concept of "cuisine" or "tasty food, yum yum" never makes it into the homes, mouths or stomachs of impressionable young people.
  • My parents are joining in with the local PTA to ban The Sims and The Sims 2. Allowing children to kill their parents in the pool, starve them to death, etc, is just way beyond what we have come to expect from a decent game maker.
  • Judging by the reviews and scores of the game I wouldn't worry about too many people playing it anyway. (3.1/10 on IGN).
  • That game also features bad guys running around shooting cops and civillians and generally being bad.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Close