Disgruntled Goat

It's unfortunate that so many gamers thoughtlessly adopt a defensive position whenever the word "protest" is paired with a video game title. This isn't another case of clueless old folks bashing video games under the premise that they're creating legions of hyper-aggressive teen snipers. This isn't Lieberman decrying Mortal Kombat or Night Trap. This isn't Jack Thompson engaging in more sanctimonious zealotry. Not every protest represents an attack on the MEDIUM itself. That PETA even uses games on its websites should suggest as much.

If someone were creating a game in which players participated in KKK terrorism, would you have a problem with the surrounding protest? I love hip hop music and hate Bill O'Reilly, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to support artists whose songs promote sexism. It isn't a free speech issue, either, because no one's suggesting that they CAN'T develop the game - only that, if they do, they risk alienating people who oppose cruelty to animals in the same way that networks airing racist programs stand to lose a great deal of viewers or listeners.

If you actually knew about how Ringling Bros. treats elephants, for example, using bullhooks to dig into their flesh as a means of training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGPSNPNZSQg ), I doubt many of you would be so contemptuous of this particular campaign.

There's a lot about PETA that is hypocritical, but turning a blind eye to cruelty simply because you don't like PETA is indefensible. They don't represent the animal rights movement as a whole, and there are plenty of compelling reasons to to use your power as a consumer to oppose the development of titles that support companies, like Ringling Bros., which engage in animal cruelty as part of their standard operating procedure.

I'd show it off to my best friend: Joey Joe Joe Jr. Shabadoo.

I'd have my DSi take a picture of itself in the mirror. That way I could show off my DSi to my DSi. Take that, Xzibit.

Resident Evil 6: the Ancient Subtitle of Doom

A cruise ship.... in the center of the earth.

Do the running man.

Actually, there's another way to enjoy Mother 3 at the moment - and this one happens to be LEGAL:

just buy an import copy and play it with a translation guide.

I bought Mother 3 off play asia a year ago for $15, it plays perfectly on a DS, of course, as there's no regional lock out for GBA games. You can find several translation guides online and the game is perfectly playable. All you need to do is follow along and gradually memorize a few different commands / item character strings. $15 and a little extra effort sure beats years of ineffectual whining and petty theft.

Promoting hacked roms is pretty shameful, much less positing theft as the only way to enjoy a game that's fairly inexpensive to import. If you're angry with Nintendo - fine. Don't buy the game. Boycott their products. Stealing, however, doesn't strike me as a justified response. Nintendo failing to capitalize on its property isn't in any way equivalent to renouncing their legal rights to it.

At the end of the day, all the hollow rationalizations behind piracy won't replace the law.

You're still missing the point.

I have no problem with them ensuring that toys and video games are made available to hospitals - that's a laudable goal.

The problem is, they could achieve that goal far more efficiently without lining the coffers of Amazon.com and these game companies. This is a charity whose sole purpose, at present, is to pay RETAIL prices for gaming products. I'm sure the industry LOVES that, as does Amazon.com.

No matter what areas of philanthropy interest us, I think we're all well served by analyzing the organizations we support and ensuring that they're making the best possible use of our money. That's why Charity Navigator et al. exist. If Child's Play wishes to consider itself a legitimate charity, it should welcome this sort of scrutiny and work to maximize its effectiveness year in and year out. We shouldn't be so patronizing as to hold it to a lesser standard. I think we do the cause no service by falling into a lockstep mentality in which all critical thought is deemed "hate."

I love that there's a great cause out there for gamers to support, but personally I wish it made more of an effort to trim some of the fat away from donation spending. That's all - and I really don't see why that's such an objectionable request. If I donate $1,000 to Child's Play, why should roughly half that money line the pockets of Amazon.com and a game company when the same products could be donated directly by the companies themselves or, at the very least, offered at manufacturer cost?

Simply because the charitable outreach program stems from a gaming community does not require that program to revolve around the purchase of video games. Yes, games can indeed aid in the comfort and convalescence of hospitalized children, but we also know there are millions of children around the world for whom inadequate medical care exists and, in terms of priorities, I think it would only enhance the charity's message to suggest that we, as gamers, don't possess one track minds. In other words, we're not only interested in games. Rather than trying to shoehorn the purchase of video games into philanthropy, that same money could go to better use elsewhere while the organization could continue to ensure that hospitals are well stocked with suitable gaming products for young patients.

Contrary to popular belief, $1.4 million actually can go a VERY long way toward the construction of schools and hospitals in developing nations around the world. Recently, an organization I'm a part of donated just over $13,000 to Free the Children, who were able to construct three classroom buildings in Kenya with that amount, as well as provide teacher training and educational materials. You can imagine what $1.4 million could accomplish just with that one organization.

Domestically, you could refurbish inner city school libraries throughout the los angeles area using Access Books. You could establish computer labs for children around the world via Room To Read. $1.4 million could create scores of new college scholarships each year. Instead, we're buying DS Lites at full retail price. Again, I'm not saying that effort is worthless - far from it - only that the power of Child's Play could be put to much greater use. If they would only press game companies to donate the products themselves - and it's very low cost publicity for them to do so - you could achieve the same results while putting hard earned donor money to work in other ways that don't result in lining the pockets of game companies and retailers.

I only wish they'd be more efficient in how they spend these donations. They have great relationships with video game companies as it is, they ought to be encouraging the companies themselves to donate merchandise or, at the VERY least, purchase these products at manufacturer cost. As it is, donations primarily serve to subsidize Amazon.com and the gaming industry more so than the end beneficiary. Imagine what tangible benefits 1.4 million could provide to children around the world. I'd sooner see this money build hospitals in Sierra Leone, for example, than to buy a bunch of DS lites at retail. Nintendo ought to donate those consoles to hospitals themselves, and PA has the clout to make that happen.

Just because they operate a "game charity" doesn't mean the money must be used to buy video games. The whole point is to demonstrate that we, as gamers, possess strong social consciences and are, in truth, far more compassionate than the fanatics who decry gaming as murder simulation.