Nothing Fox News does should surprise me anymore. But having the nerve to criticize something at length out of a state of sheer ignorance and then expecting others to take time out of their schedule to correct them, possibly in a hostile environment, is remarkably shameless.
Short version: commentators on Fox have been making the video game Mass Effect out to be some kind of hardcore pornography being sold to our impressionable children. It does, apparently, contain a sex scene, but one of the commentators now admits that "I've seen episodes of [the ABC television show] Lost that are more sexually explicit."
Never mind "Fair and Balanced"; maybe Fox should face false advertising charges for using the term "news".
Article Link Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
The part about this one that really made me laugh:
quote: Irate gamers have flooded the page on Amazon.com selling Ms. Lawrence’s most recent book, “The Cult of Perfection: Making Peace With Your Inner Overachiever,” sending its user-generated rating into oblivion… Many of the reviewers admit that they have not read Ms. Lawrence’s book.
I think it's about dang time Gamers quit letting the media walk all over the games and even the gaming community. For the most part, people who play video games are generally normal people. And yet, video games get the bad side of everything.
Anyone else find it frustrating that the slander was on a television station who's own rating system is far inferior to the video game industries?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:maybe Fox should face false advertising charges for using the term "news".
There's something to this...
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Okay, I've actually played this game, and I've seen the sex scenes. There's nothing here that would be rated above PG-13. The nudity is limited to an exposed butt. Whose butt that is depends on the relationship between the main character and which supporting character you most closely bond with.
Mass Effect is a very complex game that invests heavily in plot and character development. Decisions you make open or close different paths in the game. It's probably the closest the video game industry has ever come to making a true RPG. Understanding that is crucial to evaluating the controversy.
I think an important point is that most of these scenes are a culmination of a relationship developed over the course of the game and that they are, to the best of my knowledge, mutually exclusive - investing in one character romantically will eliminate other options after a certain point. I say most because one of the sex scenes involves the main character sleeping with an alien "consort" (think Inara from Firefly but with blue skin). This scene is accessible early in the game, and as far as I can tell, does not impact your relationship with the other characters. It also involves no nudity.
Other sources, notably Kevin McCollough from TownHall, criticized the game for including lesbian sex scenes. This is both true and false. It's false because players have the option of either pursuing a human character of the opposite sex, or a sexless alien (whose species is called the Asari). The Asari are capable of mating and producing offspring with either gender of any species. The criticism is true inasmuch as all Asari are more or less feminine by human standards. So...YMMV. Again, though, pursuing your Asari crew member cuts off other romantic avenues. No hot alien three-ways, I'm afraid.
I think, all in all, that BioWare executed these scenes very tastefully. The "SeXBox" outcry has come exclusively from those who haven't bothered to play the game, or in some cases, even view clips of the scenes in question.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, so she's apologized. Are the people who trashed her ratings going to make good?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm guessing all the people who trashed her ratings are also sorry, now.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by adfectio: For the most part, people who play video games are generally normal people. And yet, video games get the bad side of everything.
Well, it's always something, right? Whether it's comic books, rock music, or D&D, there's always some fairly harmless thing enjoyed primarily by people on the younger side of the generation gap that terrified members of the elder side are sure is going to bring society to its knees. I wonder what harmless thing current videogame players will be decrying in 20 or 30 years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are the people who trashed her ratings going to make good?
They did make good, by chastising and humiliating a talentless, truthless hack.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I like a good video game every now and then. However, I believe they are a waste of time, violent, and make people stupid. My own view is that comic books, rock music, and D&D (until people realized mostly losers enjoyed the game) and I would add television might not have brought society to its knees. What they have done is contributed to the sorry state of education and western culture.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are the people who trashed her ratings going to make good?
They did make good, by chastising and humiliating a talentless, truthless hack.
That is not making good, for any reasonable definition.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: My own view is that comic books, rock music, and D@D (until people realized mostly losers enjoyed the game) and I would add television might not have brought society to its knees. What they have done is contributed to the sorry state of education and western culture.
That's an interesting perspective. Just to pick one, how has "D@D" done this?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
D&D never ended up doing this because, as I said, it faded from the general public's participation. Potentially I saw it come close to ruin lives. You lost time, became anti-social beyond the small group of players, accepted violence more readily, spent far less time learning and reading, neglected family, and became obsessive over everything. Much of this I can repeat for video games and what they have done, although the social consiquences are worse than D&D because of the lack of any thought and interaction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Potentially I saw it come close to ruin lives. You lost time, became anti-social beyond the small group of players, accepted violence more readily, spent far less time learning and reading, neglected family, and became obsessive over everything.
I've seen some of this, but disagree about the violence and reading. The people I've known that play D&D have generally been near the good end of the bell curve of how much they read. As teens, D&D players seemed far more likely to be the victims of violence perpetuated by the normal kids than the instigators of violence.
Not that I haven't heard of exceptions, but that's what I personally have observed.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional:
I like a good video game every now and then. However, I believe they are a waste of time, violent, and make people stupid. My own view is that comic books, rock music, and D&D (until people realized mostly losers enjoyed the game) and I would add television might not have brought society to its knees. What they have done is contributed to the sorry state of education and western culture.
What about movies?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:D&D never ended up doing this because, as I said, it faded from the general public's participation. Potentially I saw it come close to ruin lives. You lost time, became anti-social beyond the small group of players, accepted violence more readily, spent far less time learning and reading, neglected family, and became obsessive over everything. Much of this I can repeat for video games and what they have done, although the social consiquences are worse than D&D because of the lack of any thought and interaction.
*snort*
It's not often that someone makes it so clear without intending to that they know almost nothing of what they're talking about:)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"what about movies?" Not until recently, like in the past 40 years. I think they became far more damaging to society about the time they competed against television. They have pretty much become one and the same.
Rakeesh, I do know what I am talking about. I used to play D&D myself and had friends and family do the same. Like I implied, it turned out most of those who played the game were already prone to behaviors the game intensified. As for the violence factor, I agree that those who played the game were often those who were treated badly. However, I also saw that it was a way for those same people to lash out without any real life consiquences. Yet, those same people would often start becoming the characters they developed and played.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Yet, those same people would often start becoming the characters they developed and played.
Often? How many times have you seen this happen?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What they have done is contributed to the sorry state of education and western culture.
I agree partially with this, except the fault does not lie in television, games, music, or film as mediums, but rather in the way they have been commercialized. By that I mean, instead of being produced with the intent simply to be good, they instead are produced with the intent to pander to whatever consumers will most likely buy. Businessmen seem to have a lot more control over the end result than artists do, at least in the case of many video games.
Having said that, I think it'd be unfair to paint EVERY video game with that brush. There are definitely innovators and artists out there who are producing some fantastic games which do add greatly to our culture and our society. And to some degree, the gaming community does reward them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Weird stuff, Occ. Doesn't jibe at all my the anecdotes of my own past. Perhaps we just interpret our experiences in a way to support our own world views.
Also, I think there has to be something more to these phenomena than just the influence of games. Video games have become more sophisticated and prevalent through the last 20 years, at the same time that violent crime has been steadily decreasing. Antisocial and violent people have always existed, perhaps many of these people now gravitate to video games, leading to incorrect assessments of causality direction, though I don't think there's really any data showing a strong link between violence and video game playing, regardless of what causes what.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I do know what I am talking about. I used to play D&D myself and had friends and family do the same. Like I implied, it turned out most of those who played the game were already prone to behaviors the game intensified. As for the violence factor, I agree that those who played the game were often those who were treated badly. However, I also saw that it was a way for those same people to lash out without any real life consiquences. Yet, those same people would often start becoming the characters they developed and played.
OK, I'm as confident asserting this as I am in asserting anything comparitive about online people: I guarantee I've played more role-playing games than you have, Occasional.
What 'behaviors' does the game intensify? Killing orcs? Investigating magical murders? Exploring dungeons? As for violence, role-playing games are certainly less violent than, say, boxing or football, wouldn't you agree?
If (and I don't really believe this is true, I'm convinced you're wildly embellishing) the people you played with started 'becoming their characters', then your sample is hardly representative.
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 1549) on :
Exactly how was this Fox's mistake? They had a guest who misrepresented herself, for which she apologized. Its not like Fox was playing Al Sharpton to her Tawana Bradley.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Fox has not publicly acknowledged that they broadcast misleading, sensationalist BS. They aren't a common carrier and do have to take some responsibility for their content, regardless of who's payroll the talking heads are on.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I will grant that Fox should acknowledge that as soon as CNN and the Network news does the same. They are all hacks, although I believe my hack more than I believe your hack.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The show's host, Martha MacClallum said, "in some parts of this, you’ll see full digital nudity. Imagine! And the ability for the players to engage in graphic sex and the person who’s playing the game gets to decide exactly what’s going to happen between the two people, if you know what I mean."
One of the panelists characterized the game as "Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I will grant that Fox should acknowledge that as soon as CNN and the Network news does the same. They are all hacks, although I believe my hack more than I believe your hack.
I don't have a hack. I don't watch any of them. I don't know/care what wrongs you think CNN has done. I'm only commenting on this specific issue - Fox broadcast demonstrably incorrect information about an a subject which I have a reasonable expertise in.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
NPR 4ever.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Oh, man, if people start becoming like their characters, then the people playing in the Broken campaign are in deep, deep trouble.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::wishes really really hard for that not to be the case::
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I dream of a world where people who wear business suits are help accountable for their actions more often than not >_>
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Okay, so she's apologized. Are the people who trashed her ratings going to make good?
While I don't necessarily agree with the tactic of smearing her book on Amazon, admitting she was wrong in the New York Times is not the same as "making good". She's admitting she was wrong to an entirely different audience, not remedying the damage she was a part of.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I will grant that Fox should acknowledge that as soon as CNN and the Network news does the same. They are all hacks, although I believe my hack more than I believe your hack.
Having had a part in disseminating manifestly false information, a news organization with any sort of integrity would take their own time and resources to correct the situation. Fox instead seems to be using the unwillingness of EA (which did not publish the game) to send a representative to take time to explain that they were completely off base as some kind of victory for their side, a "you can tell they're running scared, they won't even come up to talk about it" situation. Never mind the likelihood that any such representative would likely as not end up trying to make their case on another panel, possibly stacked against them, with the hanging pre-arrived notion that they're there to defend selling pornography to children.
That is reprehensible. And the idea that that's somehow the common denominator of news organizations today is ridiculous. Unless one is prepared to cite solid examples of other agencies showing similar behavior, that is not an idea any reasonable person would accept as a matter of course.
And as far as anecdotal evidence that role-playing games or computer games lead to violent and antisocial behavior, shall we also assume that being a member of the Boy Scouts leads to senseless acts of violence? Or being a sportsfan ?
[ January 30, 2008, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Oh, man, if people start becoming like their characters, then the people playing in the Broken campaign are in deep, deep trouble.
You have no idea how delighted that comment made me.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: Yet, those same people would often start becoming the characters they developed and played.
Often? How many times have you seen this happen?
No, mph, it's true. When I was 12, I very nearly became my female Drow Cavalier character.
I was *this* close to gaining infravision!
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you're 12, which attribute of a female Drow Cavalier character would you rather have? The infravision and minor magical abilities, or the invariably smoking hawt body that all such characters of 12 year olds have?
What if you were 14? *snicker*
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The high CHA/COM, of course! It's a requirement for a Cavalier anyway
-Bok
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Okay, so she's apologized. Are the people who trashed her ratings going to make good?
While I don't necessarily agree with the tactic of smearing her book on Amazon, admitting she was wrong in the New York Times is not the same as "making good". She's admitting she was wrong to an entirely different audience, not remedying the damage she was a part of.
Also, saying "I misspoke," is a pretty weak apology when what should have been said was, "I made sweeping pronouncements based on (double) hearsay. That was wrong and lazy, and I'm sorry." Misspeaking is when I accidentally call one friend by another's name. The fact that she regrets it is nice, but I have to wonder how much of that regret involves some negative book reviews?
She was at least willing to admit she was wrong, though, so credit where it's due.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Okay, so she's apologized. Are the people who trashed her ratings going to make good?
To me, I don't think it's about making good, but rather making her realize that actions she takes will have direct consequences. What she said on television will have lasting effects on the game. Whether she takes it back or not. Likewise, her ratings on Amazon will have lasting effect on her sales.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I like a good video game every now and then. However, I believe they are a waste of time, violent, and make people stupid. My own view is that comic books, rock music, and D&D (until people realized mostly losers enjoyed the game) and I would add television might not have brought society to its knees. What they have done is contributed to the sorry state of education and western culture.
Occasional, are you Cooper Lawrence? It's like you're just making things up here. I'm sorry, but the idea that anyone becomes their role playing character is so absurd I don't even know how to address it.
Rock music and comic books are major contributers to the sorry state of education in western culture?
Wow. Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I am so completely sick of the cop-out that any source of media "Makes" somebody do something, or act a certain way, or intensifies some emotional trait or another. It's called accountability. People are responsible for their OWN actions.
The example with D&D is even more ludicrous than any of the others as the player MAKES HIS OWN CHARACTER. The character is comprised of elements that are already present in the player. It's completely voluntary. It is the character that becomes the player, not the other way around.
Even if, by some off chance, the player applies the logic of reduced consequences from the game world into real life, then the fault lies at the feet of the idiot gamer for having no grasp on reality, not on the game. I am not willing to give up my entertainment to protect idiots.
Had you said the same thing about Actors, then I might have been willing to give some ground. It makes sense when a director hands the actor a script and says "Get into character". Some even say that this scenario may have played a part in Heath Ledger's death. As with the video games, however, it's still the fault of the individual person.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Just because a person is responsible for his own actions doesn't mean someone else can't also be in part responsible for those actions, if that someone else contributed to the choice of the person to do what they did.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I'm pretty sure the "D&D players becoming their characters" thing only actually happened in that movie "Mazes and Monsters". Which was pretty awful anyway, by the by.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Just because a person is responsible for his own actions doesn't mean someone else can't also be in part responsible for those actions, if that someone else contributed to the choice of the person to do what they did.
Contributed to the choice? You're speaking of suggestion? I'll ride on this train of thought for a moment... I'll start with a cliche, and an example that I was taught in the 5th grade.
You're in court, it's a rape case. The perpetrator is on the stand giving his testimony. He says "If you had seen what she was wearing, she was practically ASKING for sex. It's not my fault, it's HERS". Several witnesses confirm that she had indeed been wearing quite revealing clothing.
Now, everyone knows the answer to this next question, but I'll ask it anyway: Was it actually her fault for encouraging emotions of sexual lust?
In my eyes, it's the exact same question, just a different emotion.
To add a bit of my own theory to the equation (I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, but I did come upon it independently), I think that every action is justified in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the act. In some way, the person involved has performed the equations to weigh the known pros and cons and picked the action that they perceive as the best. Starting with this theory, I can come up with two variables that can result in a bad decision. One is the lack of sufficient information. Pretty self explanatory. The second is that the person failed to make the necessary connections to establish which information was relevant.
I've outlined the above theory for the sole purpose of saying that it doesn't matter in this case! "It seemed like a good idea at the time" is not a viable defense. An adult can plead neither ignorance nor stupidity and expect to get away with anything straight off (Ignorance may turn Voluntary to Involuntary, but I don't think that gets you completely off). Personally, I'm disgusted that 'Insanity' is still a viable plea... especially 'Temporary Insanity'.
Point being, a person is, and should always be, held accountable for their OWN actions. Even a person raised by wolves would be removed from society if they were deemed a threat. Wild animals are routinely 'put down' when they kill a human even though it's perfectly within their nature. I don't think we should hold humans to a double-standard of accountability, especially when when the supposed cause for their behavior is so far-fetched to begin with.
Note: This isn't an attack on you Tresopax. I hope to convince you, not accuse you. It's the idea of using outside influence as an excuse that I'm attacking. The rape example is extreme but, I feel, necessary to put the subject into context. It is not in any way intended to associate you with those who would attempt to justify such a thing.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
If I may quote the great Chris Rock:
"What ever happened to 'crazy'?!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The example with D&D is even more ludicrous than any of the others as the player MAKES HIS OWN CHARACTER.
Not always. My first D&D character was not created by me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What I think is most funny about this is that nobody has jumped on Occasional for the most easily demonstrable, blatant lie in his first post.
quote:D&D never ended up doing this because, as I said, it faded from the general public's participation.
Dungeons and Dragons is more popular now than ever. It's played by millions worldwide. They've been flogging that cash cow for the past nine years, and with a new edition on the way it's probably only going to get more popular, and make WotC even more money.
If you honestly think D&D faded from the general public's participation, then you are so woefully ignorant on this topic I'm perplexed as to why you even brought it up.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Heh. My first character was a greatsword-wielding fighter. He absolutely loved greatswords, and of course the DM obliged. With cursed greatswords. That liked to mind-control.
Throw in a set of lucky (for me) and unlucky (for the rest of the party) dice rolls, and I nearly managed to kill, while in my dominated state, one of the party clerics despite both of them (there were two) healing the guy I was attacking, and everyone else trying to knock me unconscious and/or kill me, though they finally managed to subdue me and get rid of the cursed sword. (Wow, that was a lot of parentheses.)
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What I think is most funny about this is that nobody has jumped on Occasional for the most easily demonstrable, blatant lie in his first post.
quote:D&D never ended up doing this because, as I said, it faded from the general public's participation.
Technically, that was in his second post. Also, I think you're right about it's popularity.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)