You're worried for your safety I'm sure. Look if you don't want to parlay, log off. Don't threaten moderation so you can declare final victory. I've eroded point after point with you and I'm going to keep up the more you respond.Ragdrazi said:have started to make me wonder if you're unbalanced. I'm asking you again: Why is this conversation so personal for you? Answer.
Absolutely not. That game the Aquaria guy made is no where near the level of normal violence in Fable 2, and certainly no where near the level of child killing or infanticide in FIRST AMENDMENT APPROVED Fable 2. Furthermore it doesn't fit my example, well because it's my example, not yours. You brought up something you thought was sufficient I said "not quite what I had in mind" and then you just had a fit.Ok, I give up. If you want to change history so that what you said about Yahtzee creating a game becomes someone with a multi-platform major release creating a game I'm not going to try to stop you anymore. Anyone who wants to check the thread before this can see what you said anyway.
Yeah, they used it pointlessly as something to beat their chests over and people didn't care because most families did not have computers. Enter the home console and controversies over those and you have yourself the things that actually matter. I'm sure like any staunch first amendment supporter you think everyone is an idiot, but you must accept that there is a major difference to the citizen whether this content is hypothetically accessible to their child or not, right?See, now I know you weren't around back then. In 1994 the senator from my state was pushing hard against Doom, holding hearings, looking to put down some radical restrictions, and after Columbine you couldn't turn on a TV without hearing the word Doom. It was a shit storm. Every politician was looking to use it as a reelection plank. Doom has had shit following it ever since its release, and it was the single most important game in launching the this era's repression at the hands of Jack Thompsons and Hillary Clintons. I'm impressed I have to tell people this. Doom was the catalyst. Doom was the game that got them all started.
Well Manhunt really didn't have gore, and Manhunt 2 was censored because they made really violent torture mini-games (as far as I know) and because of previous controversy. The whole thing was pretty calculated on Rockstar's part(or so people say). Though there is a perfect example of what Lionhead was trying to avoid. Fie on them for not living every moment of their lives as an affirmation of the first amendment, like you do!Manhunt just looked gross. Didn't want to play it.
At no point in Fallouts one and two are entrails portrayed slowly oozing out. That's gore.
Uh no. I'm trying to prove that you can't just point back and say "this is over there is absolutely no reason people can't do this anymore". It's not about an example counting, it's about the two worlds being different. Look at the controversy over Hot Coffee (nearly inaccessible on consoles, but reported on thoroughly) and Custard's Last Stand. They're totally incomparable. This is because the climates Custard and GTA were released in are different and because the climates Fallout 3 and Fallout 1/2 were released in are different. Not to mention the games are totally different. Fallout 1 and 2 were paid no heed not because mankind at once decide the content was perfectly acceptable, but because they were RPGs and on the computer and no one really gave a shit either. Where Fallout 3 being advertised in primetime, is under much more scrutiny than Fallout 1 or 2.Now, wait a second, kid. Custer was on console, which, up until this point, in spite of all evidence given to you to the contrary, has been the single factor you've said is necessary for a video game to become controversial. Now you're saying it needs to be a modern console or it doesn't count?
Just sinking that awful non-point.You talking to me or to Yahtzee?Worm4Life said:Can anyone claim complete freedom in any game it's claimed in? No of course not, it's a non-point made by a non-reviewer.
Because you're presuming people will only ever disagree with you because they are not as pure of purpose (as a guy who sits and posts about the first amendment on the escapist's forums). The only possible reason they could have decided to not take the risks is because they don't have the artistic integrity (of a guy who posts about the first amendment on the escapist's forums).We shouldn't expect people to defend the first amendment? Why?
Child endangerment was in Fallouts one and two, and as sick as they sounded, they enriched the game. The only reason it wasn't in three was because today's game developers don't want to take the same risks earlier developers did. Economics, the "free market" trumping the constitution.
Why shouldn't I decry that?
So there you have it, you're presuming their exercise of first amendment rights to NOT INCLUDE CONTENT is fallacious just because someone in the past chose a different path. What you have here amounts to nothing, and is just some kind of stupid piggy back argument, where future developers are not allowed to make decisions based on what they believe but need to pointlessly provoke to meet the high standards (of a guy who posts about the first amendment on the escapist's forums).
No, freeing Max Hardcore is endlessly more important than that.But let me ask you this. Were where you when we were in the streets shouting "Free Lieutenant Watada." Because, kid, I did not see you at our protests, and that was about the most important "Free _____" case this country has seen in the last 30 years.