James

I have been in one accident which involved four cars. The car that caused the accident was driven by a woman and the person who was hit who complained the loudest was also a woman. I'm a man.

Of the friends who's driving histories I know, by far the women have had higher rates of accidents. Darn, so much for your experience.

It's not that I dislike your viewpoint- it's that it's based on all of two people and has no numbers, studies, or even a bleeding questionaire to back it up. This isn't an article so much as a whiney rant.

*sigh* Fine Sean, I'll bite.

It's important to keep in mind that Ruberg's belief that Tetris supports diversity as "it takes all different shapes and kinds to make the game as a whole fit together" is mired in three main problems. From a gameplay standpoint, it is important to keep in mind that a part of Tetris' challenge comes from the diversity of the blocks and that if the game were comprised of merely "straight" pieces it would be a simple matter for even the most inexperienced player to quickly aquire a record-shattering score. Likewise, from a social standpoint, the name Tetris comes from the Latin "tetr," meaning "four." Each piece is a configuration of four blocks, indicating that all pieces are inherently the same, is a parallel to country of origin, the former Soviet Union. Designed under Marxist and Lenninist socialist philosophies, all people are meant to be truly equal with equal rights, earnings, and priveleges due to a lack of class. Saying it takes "different shapes and kinds," while true as far as occupation is concerned, is detrimental to the communist social concept and is unlikely considering Alexi Pajitnov's background. Finally, all but the most skilled Tetris players are incapable of using every block, which according to Ruberg's line of thinking must ultimately represent misused or placed individuals. These "people" are disruptive to the world around them, ultimately causing failure if there are enough of them. By elliciting frustration from the gamer, these blocks are desired by players to be removed and ostracized. A more accurate lesson from Tetris, by Ruberg's line of thinking, is "God dammit it would be nice if I could get rid of those L shaped blocks/black people/muslims/rich white bastards/insert social, religious, or racial group here."

There's some BS counter-intellectualism, Sean. It can be read in Bonnie's article and Tetris just as easily, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bunch of crap.

I couldn't and can't accept this as tongue in cheek because it still tries to come across with some intelligible and yet still heavy-handed moral. The article isn't clever, it's hardly satirical, and when combined with the theme of the articles as a whole (sex, sexuality, gender, and related elements in gaming) it just feels tacked on as there really isn't too much to write about.

Also, to pcketmnky, just FYI- that's an incredibly stupid sexist outlook. Men and women have different viewpoints even within their own genders and while they may /tend/ to think in terms of X, Y, or Z, it's hardly a rule of thumb (ironic phrase usage OMGZ!!)

"When I play RPGs starring effeminite heroes weilding oversized swords, I associate the experience with sex. Here are characters secure enough in their masculinity that they actively persue alternate-gendered style while still clinging to their grossly phallic swords, satisfying an inner need to "oppress" others using said masculinity. These strangely contradictory elements are essential to understanding the Japanese sexual mindset."

I've got the idea for the next collumn set!

Peacefuloutrage,

I'm simply using Fable as an example of a series of logical acts that end with a positive result that the game makers did not forsee and consider. Violence was described, yes. Was assassination? because that's what this example is. Assissination of a homeowner followed by an aquisition of property. Please understand that I'm fully aware of the fact that I'm quibbling over small examples, but I do think it's noteworthy as an example of something where the whole is different from the natural sum of the parts.

And it is noteworthy that there is a difference between imaginary and real mischief, violence, whatever. But videogames are becoming increasingly more realistic, shouldn't that be taken into account? A game of Contra's violence 20 years ago was hardly realistic but the same amount nowadays, relatively speaking, is a very different thing.

The gaming community is very quick to dismiss all of this when really it should be examined by impartial studies. The gamers are too quick to dismiss violence in games and say that the ratings are adequate and blame the parents while these lawmakers are too quick to use inadequate and biased scientific evidence to promote games as negative influences (and also to pass silly laws).

I simply think that it is very reasonable for lawmakers to want games played fully to the best ability of the ESRB or other groups that might assign ratings. Will things be missed? Sure. But it's not like porn hasn't been slipped into children's movies before, right (Rescuers, anybody)?

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, but they do have at least something of a point. In games that allow for a great deal of potential, sometimes the developers don't even think of what you can do. An example that comes to mind is in Fable, where players can kill a town, then buy all the houses and rent them out. I'm not saying it's a good example, but it IS an example of something players can do that wasn't even considered by development teams (and to be fair, if anybody's not aware of what the Hell their own games are like it's Peter Molyneux). It's not unreasonable for concerned parents (not to be confused with lawmakers) to want the ESRB to really at LEAST put in a strong effort to work through a game.

The "blip" is one of the Transformers in the forms they take when landing on Earth, so there ya' go.

Wait, Itagaki is likable now?

I honestly don't know if this is a joke or not, but you guys seem to be playing both sides of the field here. On one hand, the Wii is a good "pick up and play" system, on the other we should powder our hands before hand to play? On one hand, it's fun to make the big motions and have lots of fun (isn't that Wii delight number 2?), on the other you're reminding us that subtle motions are acceptable and help not break things.

Is this post sarcastic- I'm willing to admit that maybe I just can't see it. Or can you guys please reconcile these somewhat contradictory ideas?

It's a good idea. If you could only keep (let's say) four or five games on there at a time, is that really a problem? Keep a party game or two on there for random occassions and a serious game or two that your rotate on and off every couple weeks. It's not like I play fifteen different games in a a given week and I doubt most others do too.