Jeffers, Ah ha! That explains it! I wondered why I hated moving so much. My parents moved around a lot when I was a kid (during the 1970s) and my son's mother, once she moved in with me, was constantly giving excuses as to why we should move (this was late '90s, and between 2000-late 2001) to new homes. Hated every time we did.
Constantly had to prove I could cram a two bedroom house full of stuff into the smallest truck U-Haul had.
So what if Tetris was out long after the 1970's. If John Bruce can ignore the abuse Posey received, then I can ignore all the moving my parents did and just blame Tetris! Hey! Maybe we can sue one or more of the makers of Tetris for $600 million! Heck, I'd settle for half, but don't tell them that. Let's start high and work our way down, make them think they're getting off light.
As to "Exhibit A"? Let's see: Ever since violent video games started coming out, I've not commited a murder, been in a physical fight, comited rape, attacked any co-workers, performed a school shooting, driven a car above the speed limit (almost never driven. Depends on if you count backing a car out of a tight spot for my mother when I was really young), or even come close to commiting any act that you may try to mislead any individual, organization, or government official into believing it was "because of the video games". So "Exhibit A"? Yup... AS EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE AGAINST THE FALSE AND FRAUDLENT CLAIMS OF A DISHONORABLE, UNETHICAL, BIGOTED PIECE OF GUTTER TRASH NAMED JOHN BRUCE "JACK" THOMPSON.
OtakuCODE, I disagree with your claim that the rating system implies that video games are potentially harmful.
There are a variety of reasons why some parents may limit the rating their own children play. Those reasons may very well be a belief that a particular rated game may cause harm. Another may think that a particular rated game may actually be too advanced for their child. Another may have strong religious beliefs and view certain rated games as being too morally different from their own.
The letter part of the rating is a "flash card" if you will. An informed parent will know at least the basic reasons why a game is given a particular letter. The discriptors are there to inform an intelligent individual about what content is there.
The ratings allow informed parents to make their own decisions by flashing a notice, in a sense, letting the parent know that the parent should pay attention to the content as the parent may need to make a decision as to what they would find appropriate or not appropriate for their own child. The ratings don't read as judgments on games (or movies or other material for that matter). It merely is there to inform someone to take note.
A parent can go with that little bit of info, or go do further research.
But I don't see the ratings as passing judgment, merely informing people of content, leaving positive or negative opinions to the consumer.
I think someone mentioned that there was another video game that was found. They, too, were curious why the maker of that video game (Ubisoft?) wasn't included as a defendant, showing that there is a clear bias and possibly a hidden agenda in the motive to filing this suit.
It should be noted, for those who don't know, that Cody himself is also a defendant.
Over in the article about John Bruce becoming boring, I posted my own opinions about him and his actions. If he decides to post in this article, I'll copy and paste it because it remains true.
Matt, I agree about the step-sister. It's been a strange part of the case that I couldn't figure out either. I can understand (one may not be able to claim Cody's acts to be "justifiable", but it isn't hard to "understand" that an individual may choose the path he choose, for good or ill) why he killed his father and his step-mother (especially if she was in on the attempted sexual assault of Cody). But unless there is something I missed in the testimony, I can't figure why he killed his setp-sister. Accident while killing one of his parents? Heat of the moment while killing one of his parents? Who knows besides Cody.
Flipside, I think it's under utilized. In the sense that engines such as that one, in combination with a story web approach to storytelling could make stories like GTA and Bully some seriously replayable material. Right now, the replayability comes from the free roam modes. But if playing the storylines in different ways sould produce different results and even go as far as creating major different storylines within the single game, it would go a long way to advancing story telling technologies.
Many games have used a story tree method. Follow the main branch. If you veer off a little, you might play a wee bit more, but it ends up a dead end loss (take Wing Commander or True Crime: Streets of LA).
But in a story web, actions throughout the game might lead to other paths that are still vaild, major good endings. Imagine if, based on Gameplay, you could have had Sonny in GTA VC end up as an undercover agent for the FBI. Or the owner of VC. Or a corrupt politician in VC. Or even a good politician in VC. Perhaps you're a major bad guy who actually finds a way to get the cops to help you in your criminal activities. The stories change through gameplay and continue, but it's the same game.
Or suppose you're playing CJ in GTA SA. Instead of following the brutal path of a gangster, you are still a criminal who doesn't use violence yourself. Imagine a gameplay (not cutscene) event where a single NPC cop is chasing you. You stop, turn around, hit auto-aim, which raises the weapon... but you hesitate. Depending on the programming of the NPC cop, he may shoot you... or maybe he hesitates too. Maybe the story programming takes this into account. The story changes and stays changed so long as you aren't violent. It's not a loss, it's a change in the nature of the story. Maybe the story let's you give orders to other gangmembers to be violent instead of you. Or maybe you merely take over only the drug dealing business of the cities. Or maybe... just maybe... the character actually finds himself helping cops... or becoming one. I'm not talking about replacing the storylines. Just give advanced possibilities for the storylines to follow. Storylines that don't end as a "loss".
Perhaps it'll end up the same way as this one: http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2006&p_casenumber=1113&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType= From 09/07/2006: "To the extent petitioner is seeking mandamus relief against The Florida Bar, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tyson v. Florida Bar, 826 So. 2d 265, 267 (Fla. 2002). To the extent petitioner is seeking mandamus relief against the Governor, the petition is denied because petitioner has failed to show that the Governor has a ministerial duty to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the claims set forth in the petition. See Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (stating that mandamus "is [not] proper to mandate the doing (or undoing) of a discretionary act"), approved, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983). All motions are hereby denied."
Awwww, poor baby. And let me guess, those additional tid bits afterwards were your usually temper tantrum because you lost? Based on your prior actions when you loose, I'd say it's possible (readers: Look up his responses to not being the center of attention to the Joshua Robida case or to being tossed off the Alabama case, among others).
Of course, the Superior Court case that preceded the aforementioned case you had voluntarily dismissed, after having the judge recused. Was he a liberal too? After all, you suggested to Louisiana's Governor and State AG that they have the judge in the Louisiana legislation case be recused because he is a liberal.
But, yes John Bruce, we knew about that case some time ago. PACER is a wonderful thing. And many folks have been laughing about you for the past week over this case. It's nothing new. Your typical display of a tin-pot-dictator-wannabe activities is absolutely nothing new. No more than your lying and deceiving individuals, organizations, and government officals about anything to do with video games. Making your claimed "expert" title no more true than any claim you might make about being an honorable, ethical Christian. And based on your worship of a demon pretender to the throne of heaven, I'd say the chance of you truly being an honorable, ethical Christian is... oh... nil, zero, ziltch, nada.
Actually, Cody was physically, verbally, mentally, and, reportedly, sexually abused (or at least the father tried to involve Cody in sexual abuse).
But apparently, in John Bruce's personal/religious/political opinion, that's completely acceptable. Long term abuse apparently is ok, as long as the victim stays a good little victim and lives with it.
Even the uncle, in the Court TV interview, said clearly that there were NO signs that Cody was capable of murder. He claimed, in the interview, that he felt Cody was a liar and sneaky (even since Cody was a baby, which is a rather silly thing to say). But he saw no signs that Cody was a physical threat. So, it appears, the uncle is magically seeing it all now. Oh, video games made him do it. In Truth, the reason he suddenly went from no signs to video-game-blame is the lying and deceptive manipulation of an individual who has a hidden agenda to mislead the general public, law enforcement, and the government for their own personal/religious/political reasons.
And before such individuals start spouting their obscene religious poppycock, they should know that I view the "God" they created for their own personal jusifications to be nothing more than a demon pretender to the throne of Heaven. Much in the same way Osama Bin Lauden and his followers also follow a fake Islamic faith with a demon pretender at the top created to justify their acts. So whatever religious nonsense such an individual might spout does not come from any True, honorable, ethical God, if any God exists. Because no True, honorable, ethical God would support lying, deceiving, misleading, or abusing anyone in any way, shape or form just to force their personal/religious/political beliefs on others.
And as far as the insults about gamers. Considering who it's coming from and that individual's True Nature, as pointed out time and again, I'd call such "insults" to actually be compliments in comparison to the person making the "insults".
After all, said maker of insults is implying that the real physical, mental, verbal and/or sexual abuse that Cody received is of no importance in comparison to playing a violent video game based in a fictional reality. Such an idea is sick, obscene, abusive, dishonorable, and unethcial, and is definitely not the belief of an honorable, ethical, intelligent God.
A couple of decades ago, what you see on Second Life was pretty much a view of what the online community would become. We'd have virtual avatars wandering around the "online world", going from shop to shop... uh, shopping, "walking" over to the local "virtual college" taking classes, "walking" down to the local virtual tavern and socializing, and so on and so forth. But, of course, with a very few exceptions, there wasn't that type of connectivity in the end.
The internet didn't turn out as expected by a large number of visionaries. It just became a hodgepodge of little connected pages, and even lesser known ramblings, interspersed with porn. People out there are trying to turn Second Life into that old vision, but I think it's a wee bit too late for that. We're seeing some folks put it to clearly non-game/non-entertainment use. Maybe it'll grow. Then again, maybe not. Who knows what's next. Can it reach the non-game/non-entertainment popularity equivilant of the online gaming experience World of Warcraft? Time will tell.
Devian, like I said, there's plenty of kinks. Here's one article from 2004 about the temporary dropping of the idea to allow military personnel to use online voting. There have been similar arguments for non-military personnel as well.
Goodwin, Perhaps you've forgotten that several places had been working on the idea of online voting. Of course, there's still plenty of kinks to work out in that idea.
Still, it's clear that despite all the negative hoopla and misconception about a variety of media, many people are beginning to look beyond the "expected" use of that media and put the media to their own uses. From getting out propaganda messages, to messages looking for some form of sympathy, to informing people about important issues, to even spreading hate and ignorance. This is just evidence that people are thinking of a wider range of uses for the media out there. I can't say it's necessarily a bad thing. After all, not everyone who plays MMOs are as you describe.
The Political Game: Video games made me do it
Sep 30th 2006 7:53AM (Joystiq)Ah ha! That explains it! I wondered why I hated moving so much. My parents moved around a lot when I was a kid (during the 1970s) and my son's mother, once she moved in with me, was constantly giving excuses as to why we should move (this was late '90s, and between 2000-late 2001) to new homes. Hated every time we did.
Constantly had to prove I could cram a two bedroom house full of stuff into the smallest truck U-Haul had.
So what if Tetris was out long after the 1970's. If John Bruce can ignore the abuse Posey received, then I can ignore all the moving my parents did and just blame Tetris! Hey! Maybe we can sue one or more of the makers of Tetris for $600 million! Heck, I'd settle for half, but don't tell them that. Let's start high and work our way down, make them think they're getting off light.
Heh heh :: snort ::
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
The Political Game: Video games made me do it
Sep 29th 2006 8:27PM (Joystiq)From http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/28/dissecting-rockstars-formula-joystiq-previews-vice-city-storie/
Comment number 25
From http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/27/jack-thompson-becomes-boring/
Comment 33
As to "Exhibit A"? Let's see: Ever since violent video games started coming out, I've not commited a murder, been in a physical fight, comited rape, attacked any co-workers, performed a school shooting, driven a car above the speed limit (almost never driven. Depends on if you count backing a car out of a tight spot for my mother when I was really young), or even come close to commiting any act that you may try to mislead any individual, organization, or government official into believing it was "because of the video games". So "Exhibit A"? Yup... AS EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE AGAINST THE FALSE AND FRAUDLENT CLAIMS OF A DISHONORABLE, UNETHICAL, BIGOTED PIECE OF GUTTER TRASH NAMED JOHN BRUCE "JACK" THOMPSON.
And D**N proud of it.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Pixelante and proud.
The Political Game: Video games made me do it
Sep 29th 2006 1:42PM (Joystiq)I disagree with your claim that the rating system implies that video games are potentially harmful.
There are a variety of reasons why some parents may limit the rating their own children play. Those reasons may very well be a belief that a particular rated game may cause harm. Another may think that a particular rated game may actually be too advanced for their child. Another may have strong religious beliefs and view certain rated games as being too morally different from their own.
The letter part of the rating is a "flash card" if you will. An informed parent will know at least the basic reasons why a game is given a particular letter.
The discriptors are there to inform an intelligent individual about what content is there.
The ratings allow informed parents to make their own decisions by flashing a notice, in a sense, letting the parent know that the parent should pay attention to the content as the parent may need to make a decision as to what they would find appropriate or not appropriate for their own child. The ratings don't read as judgments on games (or movies or other material for that matter). It merely is there to inform someone to take note.
A parent can go with that little bit of info, or go do further research.
But I don't see the ratings as passing judgment, merely informing people of content, leaving positive or negative opinions to the consumer.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
The Political Game: Video games made me do it
Sep 29th 2006 1:25PM (Joystiq)It should be noted, for those who don't know, that Cody himself is also a defendant.
Over in the article about John Bruce becoming boring, I posted my own opinions about him and his actions. If he decides to post in this article, I'll copy and paste it because it remains true.
Matt, I agree about the step-sister. It's been a strange part of the case that I couldn't figure out either. I can understand (one may not be able to claim Cody's acts to be "justifiable", but it isn't hard to "understand" that an individual may choose the path he choose, for good or ill) why he killed his father and his step-mother (especially if she was in on the attempted sexual assault of Cody). But unless there is something I missed in the testimony, I can't figure why he killed his setp-sister. Accident while killing one of his parents? Heat of the moment while killing one of his parents? Who knows besides Cody.
Here's the case info so far, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.nmcourts.com/caselookup/searchDetail.htm?caseId=D-202-CV-200607672&caseTitle=&fromDate=2006-09-24&toDate=2006-09-29&fromPage=psr
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Dissecting Rockstar's formula: Joystiq previews Vice City Stories (PSP) & Bully (PS2)
Sep 29th 2006 12:12PM (Joystiq)I think it's under utilized. In the sense that engines such as that one, in combination with a story web approach to storytelling could make stories like GTA and Bully some seriously replayable material. Right now, the replayability comes from the free roam modes. But if playing the storylines in different ways sould produce different results and even go as far as creating major different storylines within the single game, it would go a long way to advancing story telling technologies.
Many games have used a story tree method. Follow the main branch. If you veer off a little, you might play a wee bit more, but it ends up a dead end loss (take Wing Commander or True Crime: Streets of LA).
But in a story web, actions throughout the game might lead to other paths that are still vaild, major good endings.
Imagine if, based on Gameplay, you could have had Sonny in GTA VC end up as an undercover agent for the FBI. Or the owner of VC. Or a corrupt politician in VC. Or even a good politician in VC. Perhaps you're a major bad guy who actually finds a way to get the cops to help you in your criminal activities. The stories change through gameplay and continue, but it's the same game.
Or suppose you're playing CJ in GTA SA. Instead of following the brutal path of a gangster, you are still a criminal who doesn't use violence yourself. Imagine a gameplay (not cutscene) event where a single NPC cop is chasing you. You stop, turn around, hit auto-aim, which raises the weapon... but you hesitate. Depending on the programming of the NPC cop, he may shoot you... or maybe he hesitates too. Maybe the story programming takes this into account. The story changes and stays changed so long as you aren't violent. It's not a loss, it's a change in the nature of the story. Maybe the story let's you give orders to other gangmembers to be violent instead of you. Or maybe you merely take over only the drug dealing business of the cities. Or maybe... just maybe... the character actually finds himself helping cops... or becoming one. I'm not talking about replacing the storylines. Just give advanced possibilities for the storylines to follow. Storylines that don't end as a "loss".
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Dissecting Rockstar's formula: Joystiq previews Vice City Stories (PSP) & Bully (PS2)
Sep 29th 2006 10:09AM (Joystiq)http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2006&p_casenumber=1113&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType=
From 09/07/2006:
"To the extent petitioner is seeking mandamus relief against The Florida Bar, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tyson v. Florida Bar, 826 So. 2d 265, 267 (Fla. 2002). To the extent petitioner is seeking mandamus relief against the Governor, the petition is denied because petitioner has failed to show that the Governor has a ministerial duty to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the claims set forth in the petition. See Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (stating that mandamus "is [not] proper to mandate the doing (or undoing) of a discretionary act"), approved, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983). All motions are hereby denied."
Awwww, poor baby. And let me guess, those additional tid bits afterwards were your usually temper tantrum because you lost? Based on your prior actions when you loose, I'd say it's possible (readers: Look up his responses to not being the center of attention to the Joshua Robida case or to being tossed off the Alabama case, among others).
Of course, the Superior Court case that preceded the aforementioned case you had voluntarily dismissed, after having the judge recused. Was he a liberal too? After all, you suggested to Louisiana's Governor and State AG that they have the judge in the Louisiana legislation case be recused because he is a liberal.
But, yes John Bruce, we knew about that case some time ago. PACER is a wonderful thing. And many folks have been laughing about you for the past week over this case. It's nothing new. Your typical display of a tin-pot-dictator-wannabe activities is absolutely nothing new. No more than your lying and deceiving individuals, organizations, and government officals about anything to do with video games. Making your claimed "expert" title no more true than any claim you might make about being an honorable, ethical Christian. And based on your worship of a demon pretender to the throne of heaven, I'd say the chance of you truly being an honorable, ethical Christian is... oh... nil, zero, ziltch, nada.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Jack Thompson becomes boring
Sep 28th 2006 9:25AM (Joystiq)But apparently, in John Bruce's personal/religious/political opinion, that's completely acceptable. Long term abuse apparently is ok, as long as the victim stays a good little victim and lives with it.
Even the uncle, in the Court TV interview, said clearly that there were NO signs that Cody was capable of murder. He claimed, in the interview, that he felt Cody was a liar and sneaky (even since Cody was a baby, which is a rather silly thing to say). But he saw no signs that Cody was a physical threat. So, it appears, the uncle is magically seeing it all now. Oh, video games made him do it. In Truth, the reason he suddenly went from no signs to video-game-blame is the lying and deceptive manipulation of an individual who has a hidden agenda to mislead the general public, law enforcement, and the government for their own personal/religious/political reasons.
And before such individuals start spouting their obscene religious poppycock, they should know that I view the "God" they created for their own personal jusifications to be nothing more than a demon pretender to the throne of Heaven. Much in the same way Osama Bin Lauden and his followers also follow a fake Islamic faith with a demon pretender at the top created to justify their acts. So whatever religious nonsense such an individual might spout does not come from any True, honorable, ethical God, if any God exists. Because no True, honorable, ethical God would support lying, deceiving, misleading, or abusing anyone in any way, shape or form just to force their personal/religious/political beliefs on others.
And as far as the insults about gamers. Considering who it's coming from and that individual's True Nature, as pointed out time and again, I'd call such "insults" to actually be compliments in comparison to the person making the "insults".
After all, said maker of insults is implying that the real physical, mental, verbal and/or sexual abuse that Cody received is of no importance in comparison to playing a violent video game based in a fictional reality. Such an idea is sick, obscene, abusive, dishonorable, and unethcial, and is definitely not the belief of an honorable, ethical, intelligent God.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Harvard class invades Second Life
Sep 12th 2006 2:19PM (Joystiq)The internet didn't turn out as expected by a large number of visionaries. It just became a hodgepodge of little connected pages, and even lesser known ramblings, interspersed with porn. People out there are trying to turn Second Life into that old vision, but I think it's a wee bit too late for that. We're seeing some folks put it to clearly non-game/non-entertainment use. Maybe it'll grow. Then again, maybe not. Who knows what's next. Can it reach the non-game/non-entertainment popularity equivilant of the online gaming experience World of Warcraft? Time will tell.
nightwng2000
The Political Game: The Virtual Candidate
Sep 8th 2006 8:54PM (Joystiq)Here's one article from 2004 about the temporary dropping of the idea to allow military personnel to use online voting. There have been similar arguments for non-military personnel as well.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020504d2.htm
The Political Game: The Virtual Candidate
Sep 8th 2006 2:59PM (Joystiq)Perhaps you've forgotten that several places had been working on the idea of online voting. Of course, there's still plenty of kinks to work out in that idea.
Still, it's clear that despite all the negative hoopla and misconception about a variety of media, many people are beginning to look beyond the "expected" use of that media and put the media to their own uses. From getting out propaganda messages, to messages looking for some form of sympathy, to informing people about important issues, to even spreading hate and ignorance. This is just evidence that people are thinking of a wider range of uses for the media out there. I can't say it's necessarily a bad thing. After all, not everyone who plays MMOs are as you describe.
nightwng2000