gamepolitics: Guess Which Game This Developer is Slamming?

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-02-07 07:03:00

Entry tags:

michael russell, politics, ritual, violence

Guess Which Game This Developer is Slamming?

Here's something you don't see every day - a video game developer slamming another organization's game for issues like excessive violence and criminal behavior.

The developer is Michael Russell, a QA manager for Ritual Entertainment (Sin, Counter-Strike Condition Zero). Check out his blog, Rom's Rants and see if you can figure out which game he is talking about.

(hint: you won't hear Jack Thompson complaining about this one.)

(72 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	evilrockstu 2006-02-07 12:48 pm UTC (link)
	Awesome. (Reply to this)

	namco_ 2006-02-07 12:52 pm UTC (link)
	Something like Tony Hawks Underground? - sounds silly i know (Reply to this) (Thread)

	namco_ 2006-02-07 12:54 pm UTC (link)
	ah that was before i clicked the links but i was close (in a sporting sense) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	radixgames 2006-02-07 12:53 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, clever. A stronger case could be made for banning that than video games, really. (Reply to this)

	ianc14 2006-02-07 01:06 pm UTC (link)
	Ah it get it now. Yeah Jack wouldnt support the banning of this would he. (Reply to this)

	silver_derstin 2006-02-07 01:11 pm UTC (link)
	I like that game, this guy is an idiot and oppresses my First Amendment right to play this game and enjoy watching it. No seriously... I like this game. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-02-07 01:14 pm UTC (link)
	Me too. But he makes his point well, no? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

silver_derstin, 2006-02-07 01:19 pm UTC

(no subject) -

aniki21, 2006-02-07 05:12 pm UTC

(no subject) -

the1jeffy, 2006-02-07 01:23 pm UTC

(no subject) -

silver_derstin, 2006-02-07 01:35 pm UTC

(no subject) -

the1jeffy, 2006-02-07 02:52 pm UTC

	My point... romsteady42 2006-02-07 02:07 pm UTC (link)
	I was trying to do exactly what our politicians have been doing, and take everything about the game out of context. Hell, if I was so inclined, I could make a similar post about holding your breath or drinking water. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: My point... -

silver_derstin, 2006-02-07 04:21 pm UTC

Re: My point... -

teh_truthkeeper, 2006-02-07 10:44 pm UTC

	timbo1138 2006-02-07 07:00 pm UTC (link)
	No one's saying you're not allowed to enjoy it, just like no one's saying you're not allowed to enjoy, say, GTA. It just makes an interesting point, that's all. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

riffraff1138, 2006-02-07 10:02 pm UTC

	jdllama 2006-02-07 01:14 pm UTC (link)
	Now, call it a hunch. Based on what I was reading, it appears to be something culturally accepted only in the United States; elsewhere, it seems to have a different name, where the appeal just doesn't seem to last. I'm going to guess he's talking about the movie "Clueless". (Reply to this)

	sir_bissel 2006-02-07 01:32 pm UTC (link)
	I was thinking hockey for a little bit (Reply to this) (Thread)

	blitzfitness 2006-02-07 02:18 pm UTC (link)
	Technically, all pro sports fit here. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	iceph03nix 2006-02-08 06:45 pm UTC (link)
	hockey would have fit too but it wouldnt have been as widely known. football has a much larger audience (in america). Dont get me wrong I love hockey but it just isnt nearly as popular throughout the united states. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Some other points ... verbinator 2006-02-07 01:32 pm UTC (link)
	Local schools often extort extra tax money out of citizens to support this game. This game, and similar activities create unreal expectations in young players of the game, inflating their actual worth to society. Playing this regularly takes students away from their studies. (Reply to this)

2 cents

the1jeffy
2006-02-07 02:06 pm UTC (link)

I think the general acceptance of this game in the article just goes to point out the hypocrisy of American culture (If there is one, I could argue that video games have more culture - that's another story). Violence is generally acceptable and even condoned. High School versions of this game have been demonstrated to be the direct cause of many disciplinary actions in schools (Bullying by jocks, etc). Americans think violence is OK, the old mantra "Boys will be Boys" stands out as being accepted. Despite the obvious sexism of this view it still is upheld. But if you insert any nudity or sexual reference and you get people up in arms. A nipple at an awards show? Hell No! Go beat the hell out each other Billy and Johnny. That's more wholesome. American's (maybe people in general) can't figure it out. The dual-standard for the levels of sex or violence is apparent.

Perhaps we need to stop looking at activities, or past-times, or games as the cause of people's actions. People are to blame for violence, end of story. Why? We try to hold ourselves above our animal nature. Whatever your views on "Creationism" (Or Blind Sheep-ism as I call it), or "Intelligent Design" (Or Bend Over Backwards to Avoid Contradiction-ism), or "Evolution" (Guess what Theory I subscribe too?) - Whatever your views - we all need to need to agree we have animal instincts and urges. When you hurt us, we reflexively lash out in pain. We get sexually aroused because that's how we pass on our genes. People in this country like to hold humans above this. And that is fine! We are NOT mindless animals - we have acts of compassion and sacrifice that don't fit into any model in the animal kingdom. We also have acts of needless cruelty that you don't see in the animal kingdom either. Our complex, reasoning mind is a double edged sword.

The problems in America (maybe the world, I can only speak from experience) stem from when we choose to ignore our animal urges. When we look at them as naughty or are ashamed of our feelings and urges. When we do this so well we start to think we don't have these urges. We do. They are in every single human being. The urge to kill. The urge to have sexual intercourse with every partner available. Everyone feels them, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

We each learn to deal with it in different ways. Sports, like the one in the article, provide a "safe" outlet for aggression and anger. But the problem is, it is not looked at that way. The violence is glorified in its own right. The game isn't looked at as a safe outlet for aggression, it's looked at as a win lose drive. We need these types of outlets, but we choose to ignore the need because we hold ourselves above our urge to kill.

I'm not going to go into the releases for the sexual urges we all have. Why? Because there is a double-standard in America. Talking about breaking a quarterbacks leg is A-OK. Wanting to fuck him is another thing entirely. We Americans are largely sexually repressed and frustrated and it shows in the way we try and hide from sex. We hide from our sexual nature out of some obscure cultural guilt we have about feeling these urges. Child porn, abortion, rape and other true deviancy (deviancy as defined as non-consenting, non-adults) all stem from this lack of an acceptable outlet for our sexual urges.

To sum up: Blaming entertainment for the actions of people needs to stop. That's just another excuse to hide from our own hidden urges. We see a murder in the news, and we lash out about it because we don't want to recognize our own propensity for murder. The same is true for sex.

I think what makes us truly human is recognizing the animal urges for what they are, not hiding from them, and moving past them for the greater good. Too bad we are too busy scapegoating games. *sigh*

/end rant.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: 2 cents

blitzfitness
2006-02-07 02:18 pm UTC (link)

I just want to know who told you it was o.k. to break a quarterback's leg? QB's are the most protected individuals on the football field. However, I do know where you're coming from. My industry is all about releasing tension. But you don't seperate violence and sex, they are actually released the same way, physically and hormonaly. Sorry, that's my specialty and like specifics. Nice Rant though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: 2 cents -

beardoggx, 2006-02-07 02:30 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-07 02:48 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

the1jeffy, 2006-02-07 02:34 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-07 02:50 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

the1jeffy, 2006-02-07 03:08 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-07 03:24 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

the1jeffy, 2006-02-07 03:47 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

silver_derstin, 2006-02-07 04:25 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

braindead1, 2006-02-07 05:08 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

timbo1138, 2006-02-07 07:14 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

howdoyouplead, 2006-02-07 07:49 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

kajex, 2006-02-07 11:51 pm UTC

Re: 2 cents -

viridiscervus, 2006-02-07 09:14 pm UTC

20%

blitzfitness
2006-02-07 02:13 pm UTC (link)

One of the projects I'm currently working on that I plan on creating a website around starting either this summer or next summer happens to follow player behavior in the NFL, NBA, and NCAA. Once I go live, I'll likley add the rest of the sports world as well. But anyway, where did they get 20%. That number is gross. It's way too high, and I actually have the excel sheets to prove that. Also, he was alluding to pro sports, which have less criminal actiivities than college sports, and that's while knowing that most crimes commited by athletes in college sports don't become public knowledge since they aren't as famous.

My studys show that criminal activity is present in 9% of the NFL population (players only, it would go up if it counted staffing, but not by much). If you talk about NFL players with criminal records prior and during their pro careers, that number jumps up to 12 or 13%. He's sensationalizing just as all other critics do and he doesn't have the numbers to back up what he's saying. And yes, I know he's taking that number from a link, but it's inaccurate. Sounds to me like someone who feels threatened by the sports world for some reason.

P.S. - There isn't a style of game that can't be described as he did. LARPing comes to mind.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Bingo!

romsteady42
2006-02-07 02:19 pm UTC (link)

This is exactly the discussion I wanted to provoke with the posting.

Anything can be sensationalized to seem like a threat if worded correctly. I almost did the post about baseball instead. Soccer would have been too easy, given the sheer amount of soccer riots.

Note: Regarding the statistic in the link, it includes accusations of criminal behavior, not just convictions. I specifically pulled a Jack and used that stat because it was higher.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bingo! -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-07 02:20 pm UTC

Re: Bingo! -

the1jeffy, 2006-02-07 02:45 pm UTC

Re: Bingo! -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-07 02:53 pm UTC

Re: Bingo! -

silver_derstin, 2006-02-07 04:28 pm UTC

Re: Bingo! -

timbo1138, 2006-02-07 07:19 pm UTC

The link was funny -

gnomicide, 2006-02-09 12:46 am UTC

Re: The link was funny -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-09 03:55 am UTC

beardoggx
2006-02-07 02:45 pm UTC (link)

Like Mick Foley said in "Foley Is Good":

"Football's a violent sport. Don't believe me, take it from the players themselves:"

"I like to think that my best hits border on felonious assaults."
-Oakland Raiders defensive back Jack Tatum in his 1979 autobio, "They Call Me Assassin". Tatum paralyzed New England Patriots wide receiver Darryl Stingley in a game in 1978.

"I could never find a non-violent way to hit a guy."
-Conrad Dobler in his 1988 autobio, "They Call Me Dirty"

"You hit hard and you hit first, where bashing someone unconscious is a badge of honor, and breaking bones is a treat. You need to be bad on the playing field, vicious and mean, that's part of the game. That is the game."
-former All-Pro lineman, former Fox Sports game analyst, and host of "A Current Affair", Tim Green, describing the NFL.

"I've always seen football as a sport like boxing where you could get all your frustrations out and not be punished for it. We get to hit someone as hard as we want on every play...and the man who beats the other man up worse wins. Bottom line. Because you're not pulling hits in football. Whether you want to believe it or not, people are trying to hurt each other on every play."
-former NFL player Darren Drozdov, best remembered for puking on the football during a Monday Night Football game. Drozdov is a former WWE wrestler who was paralyzed during a match in 1999.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

If you read GP

blitzfitness
2006-02-07 03:09 pm UTC (link)

If you read GP you should be smarter than this. One thing that Dennis, his work, and those such as yourself learn while arguing against John Thompson, in examining law after proposed law dealing with videogames, is that quotes are not facts.

I'm not denying in football you hit people as hard as you can. That's true, but it seems everyone hear lacks the knowledge in mechanics of hitting a person. If we're talking high school football, then you're right. But Pro, semi pro, and collegiate sports don't hit as hard as you think.

Due to a continuous stream of rule change after rule change in the sport of football, the game has become one of more finesse/technique than it has strength/power. Therefore, if I'm a linebacker going to make a tackle on a running back, contrary to popular opinion, I usually can't lay a crushing blow on the running back. This is because players don't rush at each other in a straight line, full bore, with plenty of room to gain speed. That doesn't happen that often (except in the most dangerous part of football, Special Teams).

Instead, when someone says that they are laying hits as hard as possible, they mean after reducing power due to speed (or lack thereof), target speed, angular velocity, development of a play, hesitation/decision making, and on and on and on. In other words, a guy can bench 400lbs., but if he tackles somebody, it's likely not going to be a 400lb hit.

The only reason I feel the need to argue this is because this is my job. I'm working with a group to push education reform for athletes in high school and below. They aren't learning this in time and most pro careers are ended before they even play in college due to their lack of understanding in high school.

I'm not trying to attack people and their opinions, just trying to quell this dangerous line of thinking.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: If you read GP -

the1jeffy, 2006-02-07 03:19 pm UTC

Re: If you read GP -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-07 03:25 pm UTC

Good luck with that... -

romsteady42, 2006-02-07 03:22 pm UTC

Re: Dude, If you've read "Foley Is Good", -

beardoggx, 2006-02-08 03:40 am UTC

Re: Dude, If you've read "Foley Is Good", -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-08 03:44 am UTC

Re: Dude, If you've read "Foley Is Good", -

beardoggx, 2006-02-08 04:21 am UTC

Re: Dude, If you've read "Foley Is Good", -

blitzfitness, 2006-02-08 01:35 pm UTC

	Here's a headline blitzfitness 2006-02-07 03:27 pm UTC (link)
	GP CAUSES OTHERS TO GET FAT I'm just trying to get laughs, but I got so caught up here that I'm late for a client. (Reply to this)

	Was scared there for a moment..... jindewinter 2006-02-07 03:38 pm UTC (link)
	when I saw that guy’s pic I was thinking "Great now Michael Moore is getting onto the anti-game bandwagon" I was dreading another one of his crack pot "documentaries" coming out on this. I can see the title "The Evils of Video Games". Yeah I read the blog and thought he made a really valid point, and he got bonus points for not being Michael Moore. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Was scared there for a moment..... inabottle 2006-02-07 04:16 pm UTC (link)
	Aw, c'mon, now, he doesn't look like Michael Moore. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Was scared there for a moment..... -

romsteady42, 2006-02-07 04:19 pm UTC

Re: Was scared there for a moment..... -

phoenixzero, 2006-02-07 06:08 pm UTC

Re: Was scared there for a moment..... -

jindewinter, 2006-02-07 06:22 pm UTC

Re: Was scared there for a moment..... -

seifd, 2006-02-07 06:04 pm UTC

	scazza 2006-02-07 04:40 pm UTC (link)
	I was guessing pokemon, woulda been funny. There are so many bad things about that game (getting animals to fight, keeping them in confined spaces...etc) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	VG Cats & Pokemon jabrwock 2006-02-07 06:09 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=1 :P (Reply to this) (Parent)

	seifd 2006-02-07 06:02 pm UTC (link)
	Pokemon, huh? I guess that fits. When I heard odd costumes and bizarre rituals, I thought it was going to be Final Fantasy, thinking of the people that dress u[ like characters from the games. When they got into the riots, I knew I was wrong, of course. Oh, annd for the record, I do like Final Fantasy. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jindewinter 2006-02-07 06:23 pm UTC (link)
	I will see plenty of those people who dress up, come March when the FFXI fan festivle comes to the Santa Monica Pier. (Reply to this) (Parent)

automancer
2006-02-07 07:35 pm UTC (link)

I like the fact that he showed how easy it could be to gather evidence against something as widely accepted as football. Much of what was said could apply to just about any sport. Video games are no different and the fact that while there are a majority of adult game players. One of the things that I notice is that all of Mr. Thompson's "press releases" cover people within the 15-18 year range and never any younger. This age group also happens to be the most emotional and turmolistic (is that a word? :P) age group. This is when most individuals search for an identity and are going through biological changes as well. Making them the most likely to act out. Thompson sees this as the fault of video games when in reality it is anything but. I hope that made sense.

-Auto

(Reply to this)

Football and sports are much more dangerous then games.

shogun_of_truth
2006-02-08 12:51 am UTC (link)

I'd also like to point out that sports serve more positive purpose, other then teaching you to be a violence egotistical jock that thinks he is better the everyone else.

There’s tons of school violence happening everyday, and I’m not talking about school shootings.

I’m talking about football players that still have a good time beating up nerds and geeks, But oh no, we don’t care about that, we just care about when a few already disturbed gamers finally snap and fight back by bring a gun to school.

Does anyone honestly try to think for one moment why kids have become so depressed and desperate that they would kill their own classmates?

.Oh, wait, it’s because they played DOOM, right?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Football and sports are much more dangerous then games.

blitzfitness
2006-02-08 03:47 am UTC (link)

I am a jock, as has been made clear here, and I hope that one day Dennis will be writing a story about something that me and several others are working on. Part of it is called the Blitz Ball League (not only a take on football strategems, but the minigame in FF10). I'm not going to go into details about it now, but the most difficult part that we're working on is negating the very culture of jocks with it.

I stated before for another story that if I divided my friends into two groups (jocks and gamers, or variations thereof) I enjoy the solid character of the gamers moreso than the jocks, so me, although a jock, I agree with you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Football and sports are much more dangerous then games. -

shogun_of_truth, 2006-02-08 05:14 am UTC

	The most dangerous game cablecarrier 2006-02-08 05:53 am UTC (link)
	For a moment, I thought he was talking about Congress itself. Especially the criminal activity part. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: The most dangerous game dusk_sylene 2006-02-09 05:20 pm UTC (link)
	Amen. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(72 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store