 | Remember When January 24, 2008 12:57pm in thoughts |
Normally I don't like talking politics, and I still don't like to, but I want to touch on this point. Remember when presidential candidates, or any position really would campaign and actually say what they're going to do to help the country, city, town, etc? I can't seem to remember hearing that too much anymore. Now it seems that the popular way to campaign and try to win is to lie, cheat, and bash your opponent more than they bash you. I'm truly not a fan of that at all. I want to hear and see what they want to do for the country, not what their opponent has done wrong, or what they claim their opponent has done. It's really a shame that candidates feel they need to attack their opponent in order to win votes. I guess it has pretty much become the status quo now as the strategy to use, but I'd really like to just hear what they want to do to help me, because lets face it, everyone in politics has made their share of mistakes, no one's perfect. So, instead of telling me what the other has done wrong, why not tell me what you want to do to help. This is particularly aimed at the whole Clinton-Obama dispute and I'm really sick of hearing it. /endrant Tags: rants, politics, election2008 |
| 0 Comments |
| Here We Go Again...Jack Thompson at it Again October 24, 2007 1:50am in thoughts |
 So I was watching an interview on FOX with Jack Thompson regarding Manhunt 2. It was pretty much just as I expected...Jack Thompson putting himself on this giant pedestool claiming the game should be outright banned. He claimed a corrupt ESRB and stores selling these kinds of games to kids as reasons for banning. He calls the fact that Manhunt 2 went from Adults Only to Mature a blatant sign of corruption in the ESRB. Jack goes on to say that because the game can be sold to kids, it should be banned. He says that children should be protected from this. He said kids can go onto Amazon.com and buy the game or go into stores and do the same without a parent. First let's touch the Amazon.com option. To shop at Amazon legally, you need to either be 18, or have a parent/guardian supervising. The conditions of use for Amazon say:
Amazon does sell products for children, but it sells them to adults, who can purchase with a credit card or other permitted payment method. If you are under 18, you may use Amazon.com only with involvement of a parent or guardian. Amazon reserves the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders in their sole discretion.
So if someone goes onto the site and buys something, they should be 18, and if they are, then what is all the fuss about? If they aren't, Amazon reserves the right to cancel orders should they deem the buyer to be ineligable. Now while Amazon cannot physically monitor who is using their site, what parent in their right mind would give their 12 year old a credit card? And in terms of physical stores like Best Buy and GameStop, well that's the store's policy on whether to sell the game or not. So why the hell, Jack, are you going after the game? Go after the stores if you feel so strongly about limiting sales to minors. Jack compares this protection of children to the protection from porn. Okay, adult sites have age checkers to prevent those underage from registerring for their sites. But what about the countless sites that offer free previews or have pictures on their front page. Any unsupervised kid on a computer without some sort of filter could google "sex" and bring up hundreds of thousands of different sites. So Jack, are you going to push to ban all computers? While you're at it, why not ban the entire internet? It still comes down to one question. Where the hell are the parents? I'm not a parent, but isn't it THEIR responsibility to monitor what their children do, play, watch, see, etc? My parents did that to me, and at the time, I HATED it. Looking back at it now, I'm glad they were the way they were. I sure as hell will not let my future kids play certain games until I feel they are old enough. At the end of the day, this is the big thing. The parents should be responsible for their kids. But parents will try to pass off that responsibility to someone else instead of taking responsibility for their kids. I mean the games all have ratings clearly marked on them. E for everyone, T for teen, M for mature. I don't know enough about the inner workings about the ESRB to be able to dispute or agree with Jack's claims of corruption, but looking at the games I own and their ratings; the ratings are pretty doggone accurate. The ratings even give a brief reasoning for the rating. There are also plenty of websites with resources for parents about these video games. The parents need to be involved with what their children play. Banning a game is only going to help parents shrug off their responsibilities. I will say that I have no problem requiring stores to check for ID when buying M-rated games like they do with tobacco and alcohol. The games are not being banned, and you're still having a process to help protect the children. As far as I'm concerned, this would be a viable option to protect the children and the first amendment that Jack seems to be ignoring or at best, twisting it to fit his purposes. Several states have tried this, but seem to have the law struck down by the court systems. Jack, why don't you spend your time lobbying for this instead of trying to ban games. The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Video games definitely fall under this category. While I do agree with Jack in that children need to be protected, banning video games, or a video game is not the way to do it. Jack seems to have a record of twisting the amendment around to help him attempt to win his arguments. While that tactic may not be unique to him, the First Amendment allows for game makers to make whatever kind of game they choose. In the end, Jack Thompson was just being Jack Thompson. It's a shame because he seems to have a lot charisma about his "cause". If only he would put it towards a more, how shall we say it, reasonable endeavour. You can watch the interview here [Youtube.com] |
| 1 Comments |
| Sick of This... September 28, 2007 1:37pm in gaming |
| I'm sick of so many Sony Fanboys bashing Halo trying to say it's a shitty game. It's not. It's one of my favorite games and probably one of the best around. (Notice I didn't say best, but its up there) Could Bungie have done things to improve Halo 3? Of course they could have. What video game could not be improved? But what Bungie has done with Halo 3, they have done very well. The campaign's story was finalized quite nicely, and the storyline is done very well over all 3 games. The multiplayer lives up to the hype. It's fun and fast-paced and the weapons seem to be better balanced. The music is nothing short of amazing, the right music at the right time. Halo 3 has the Forge and Theater and their matchmaking does a good job at pairing players. Sure you still can't change the gametype or map, but with the press of a button, you can vote to change the map and game type (get enough votes, the map and game type will change). The graphics, while admittedly not the best the 360 has to offer are still amazing and quite a step up from Halo 2 and even better than the Halo 3 beta. But still you see many people complaining about every stinkin' little thing in the game. Sony fanboys are the worst. Too caught up in their RPGs and Final Fantasies to even consider the fact that maybe Halo is a good game, just want to bash it for being Microsoft and not Sony. I myself probably fall close to a XBOX fanboy, but seldomly do I bash any of the other consoles or PS Exclusives. They either excite me or they don't. And for any of you wondering, I have a PS3, XBOX 360, and a Wii. |
| 0 Comments |