The Week in Review

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
The Week in Review

Trim, and fit and ready to fight, the Week in Review is your round up of all the best news from the Escapist over the seven days. This week, Capcom defends itself against concerned clergymen, the "Many-Mario" equation is solved, Activision is sued, the Great Law-Devil rises and a horde of survivors take one a few lone zombies.

Capcom Disses Clergy

The four in Left 4 Dead is more than just lazy 'text speak' on Valve's part, it also represents a philosophy, an ideology if you will, of four survivors alone against the endless zombie horde. Once you start to tinker with that, well, let's just say the zombie hordes are much less frightening when you bring fifteen well armed buddies along: "Rochelle has startled the witch, no, not that Rochelle, that Rochelle. Oh, never mind, the witch is dead now anyway. Anyone hurt? No? Good. Company, move out!" Hit the link for a video of exactly what Left 16 Dead looks like. (link [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96303-Left-16-Dead-Doesnt-Go-Very-Well])



Permalink
 

jackanderson

New member
Sep 7, 2008
703
0
0
Loving the sarcasm Logan!

On topic though, I feel really sorry for Australians. America got Jack Thompson, an insane nutjob who's antics were hillarious to watch. Britain gets Keith Vaz who gets slapped in the face with the wet flannel of other MP's commmon sense enough to make sure he's just the one voice in a hoard of game lovers.

But Atkinson... he's in a position of power. He has the opportunity to block this anytime it comes through without even trying, meaning that Australia has the ability to lose great looking games at any point in time.

And,
nilcypher said:
"...but this game [Modern Warfare 2] allows players to be virtual terrorists and gain points by massacring civilians."
Really? I thought we grew out of points in the 90's? Games have moved on Atkinson, grow the fuck up.

On a lighter note, Erik Estavillo is freaking hilarious.

Keep up the good work, Logan!
 

The Rascal King

New member
Aug 13, 2009
782
0
0
I really do have to give it up to Capcom, they don't mess around By telling everyone straight up th-

Does that Left 4 Dead match have 16 players? DAAAAAAaaaaaaaauuuummmmmn. Just imagine Versus mode on that mofo! That's it! I 'm going back to PC gaming.
 

SamElliot'sMustache

New member
Oct 5, 2009
388
0
0
jackanderson said:
Loving the sarcasm Logan!

On topic though, I feel really sorry for Australians. America got Jack Thompson, an insane nutjob who's antics were hillarious to watch. Britain gets Keith Vaz who gets slapped in the face with the wet flannel of other MP's commmon sense enough to make sure he's just the one voice in a hoard of game lovers.

But Atkinson... he's in a position of power. He has the opportunity to block this anytime it comes through without even trying, meaning that Australia has the ability to lose great looking games at any point in time.

And,
nilcypher said:
"...but this game [Modern Warfare 2] allows players to be virtual terrorists and gain points by massacring civilians."
Really? I thought we grew out of points in the 90's? Games have moved on Atkinson, grow the fuck up.

On a lighter note, Erik Estavillo is freaking hilarious.

Keep up the good work, Logan!
I think anytime someone makes a 'points for killing people' comment about video games, it certainly shows the ignorance on display from the anti-game crowd. A great number of games don't include points in any way, but people like Atkinson, Thompson, and Roger Ebert wouldn't know this because all they see is Pac-Man gobbling up pellets. Another generation from now, this mindset will be completely obsolete, replaced by one that has a far better understanding of what actually happens in games compared to what those who champion against them ignorantly believe.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
SikOseph said:
If you are being sarcastic here then you are very wrong. Capcom's failure to pander to these clerics as if their opinion is in any way more important than the average person is the only way to handle this crap and maintain absolute control over their games.
You're right of course, there's no way that any cleric would dare say anything to Capcom now!

(That was more sarcasm by the way, just in case you were unsure.)
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
SikOseph said:
It's not about preventing them from saying anything, it is about giving their opinion any weight. This reaction shows them Capcom don't care about their opinions, and that is the right attitude to have.
Is it? Why?
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
SikOseph said:
Because if every religious leader who has an opinion was taken into account we wouldn't have almost any kind of videogames. FPS would be gone for a start - Quakers abhorr violence and so would presumably object. Why don't these jumped up witchdoctors merely tell their congregations not to play games they find offensive?
And now we get to the root of it, any opinion you disagree with should be disregarded. I don't particularly agree with the the religious leaders, but their concerns are genuine and for Capcom to simply dismiss them out of hand displays a short-sightedness on its, and your, part.

I don't know if you've ever been in an argument where the other person is angry, but telling them that they're being stupid rarely ends things.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
SikOseph said:
*snipped away for length*
I didn't think my point was so difficult to understand. It's the difference between Capcom saying "We know you're worried about this game, and you're an idiot to do so" and "We know you're worried about this game, but you really don't have to be and here's why." One aggravates the situation, whilst the other calms it down, but at no point does Capcom actually change the game.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
nilcypher said:
SikOseph said:
*snipped away for length*
I didn't think my point was so difficult to understand. It's the difference between Capcom saying "We know you're worried about this game, and you're an idiot to do so" and "We know you're worried about this game, but you really don't have to be and here's why." One aggravates the situation, whilst the other calms it down, but at no point does Capcom actually change the game.
I kind of stand by the argument of "Just because it can be asked doesn't mean it deserves an answer."

The reason you shouldn't take people seriously when they say something absurd is because all you do is promote the absurdity.

If I ran around saying video games were the leading cause of AIDS in the world I'm fairly sure getting that sort of response from Capcom would not warrant such a response from you defending my view.

If you took time out of your day to calmly explain to every nutjob why their views are valid and respectful (however misguided) you'd never have a single second to your day.

Sometimes when someone says the only reasonable thing to do is cut off the tip of your wang you just have to stop and say "No. That is stupid and you should feel bad."

I'm all for differing points of view, it makes the world wonderful, however when your views are rooted in absolute ludicrousness there is little room to work.

I know quoting a person who is just reading a line from their script isn't going to really help my case but I do find it to be fairly valid and I find him to be a pretty entertaining actor:



I'm sure at this point gaming companies are just sick and tired of the same recycled argument that has absolutely no solid foundation in reality. I'd be much more open to it if it weren't for spending two straight years in a field (psychology) that seems to provide almost unanimous evidence against the idea that video games are the cause of any real world (psychological) problems.

You need to set the bar high for folks, don't let them be a dumb ass, the less you caudal folks the more you'll find people exceeding all your wildest expectations.

I just get disheartened when we defend something that if released in modern day would be scoffed at almost unanimously. Unless I'm the only one that notices nearly all modern day prophets being put in psychiatric wards or utterly ignored.

If you honestly believe that calm conversation is effective at all with ideologues I imagine you've never watched a debate on fox news.

PS. I'm not trying to argue that religion is bad. I'm just saying it isn't reasonable. Perhaps I'm abusing the word reasonable. But I find it difficult to say that it is reasonable without accepting that all other possible concepts are equally reasonable (since you can just as easily devise any of an infinitely many concepts that cannot be proven, dis proven, or tested in any way). I just think people think that there is something inherently wrong with unreasonable thought processes. Perhaps because deep down we all want everything to make sense and silliness by design can't. Cognitive Dissonance perhaps? I dunno.