Vigil80

@Sunjammer : I never said it was offensive, and if you think it was good, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I will give it credit for being more reasoned than other recent works. But I don't think it's the tour de force some are holding it up as.

@drakesfortune : Thanks for posting. I don't entirely agree with everything you said, but it's nice to see the occasional break from the reapplying of the same thought processes that we're upset about in others.

@Sunjammer: I did read it, I do know what it means, and I stand by my assessment.

It poses as an exposé for a phenomenon that anyone who thought about for a minute could figure out (brand name items are licensed, including firearms). It's pandering. It has a cherry-picked, editorialized example to disturb the reader.

I could go on, but I know at some point I'm arguing against personal and political preferences, and I'm not looking to do that.

@ReV_VAdAUL: Focusing on mental illness was not what I had read in your previous post. But if that's your main point, I can certainly go along with it.

@Renahzor said:

I think a big part of this really is the overarching narrative taken on by the big players in government. The President has said "If we can save even one child, we must do everything we can". People are willing to look at throwing ANY freedom or rights they have but don't exercise regularly under that umbrella. People who don't play video games (albeit an increasingly smaller number) or especially those who play only "Family Friendly" games are very willing to talk about banning violent games because it doesn't affect them, and we have to "Just do SOMETHING" right?

Good point. Sadly, I even see our folks on this site falling into that trap, too. I'm surprised and disappointed by the number who seem to be nodding along and saying things like, "Yeah, stuff like Call of Duty, that's the problem."

I hope that it just has something to do with people trying to take CoD down a few pegs, which people love to do, but still. Even people who should know better are buying into the narrative.

@ReV_VAdAUL said:

Associate the withdrawn, disturbed young male stereotype of a gamer on gun ownership instead.

Take the fight to them rather than trying to explain to groups who have no interest in listening to you.

There are already plenty of people doing that. And they're just as slimy and wrong-headed as the Jack Thompsons of the world.

I can understand the desire to put someone else in the line of fire between your issue and the long arm of the government. But that isn't exactly a victory.

And remember, the handful in the firearms lobby frowning on video game makers and players are wrong, but they're not the only people doing so. If that's what people are taking away from these articles, then perhaps they have done a disservice. The politicians and media policing groups that have had it out for video games have not needed a good excuse or a lobby egging them on. In other words, when they finished with guns, games still wouldn't be safe.

Again that sensationalist piece from Eurogamer gets linked. I do not know what is so affecting about it.

On the whole, though, a well articulated write-up from Alex.

I'm torn. I believe the 1st and 2nd Amendments are both important, and I wish people from both camps could come together in opposing the shallow attempts to trade away either for political gain. Or at least not keep pointing at each other like guilty children yelling "he did it!"

@horseman6 said:

The problem has always been the same in the human race...

I'm not the sort to normally do FTFY posts, but, well, there we are.

Violence is not simply a bad habit to be broken. It's a force of nature. We (should) support people in controlling it, and not letting it control them. But trying to sterilize society is at best counter-productive. And, hypothetically, if they ever actually succeeded, actually got what some seem to be asking for, I believe the results would not be as idyllic as they might think.

I'm not saying nothing can be done. Being aware of mental health issues - though I'm wary of the many ways that could go wrong, too - and continuing to try to address poverty and hopelessness are worthy endeavors.

Back when Origin launched, I was able to enter the registration keys of most of my EA titles, including all my Sims 3 stuff, and have them added to my Origin account. Is this still a thing? Places like Amazon are routinely cheaper to buy from, but I like the convenience of having them managed by the client.

@Antithesis said:

@Alex_Carrillo said:

@Antithesis said:

@Hailinel said:

@Antithesis said:

@Hailinel: The implicit design of something has little to do with how it is actually used. I get enjoyment from running a slick ar15 in 3 gun competition the same as a porche gt3 owner gets enjoyment from taking his car out on track days. An irresponsible or unstable person could use my 3 gun rig to hurt or kill people, and irresponsible person in a porche gt3 speeding on a highway could cause an accident and hurt or kill people.

A responsible driver won't kill anyone by driving their car unless there is an accident. A responsible gun owner could still injure or kill, based on the nature of their occupation.

While it might seem farfetched, it's not impossible for someone to be against the idea of funding a gun manufacturer with their own money (where profits go to the publisher/developer that licensed the rights to the models) while also buying and playing video games that prominently feature gun use.

I can understand not wanting your money to go to a weapons manufacturer if you aren't into the whole gun thing. People just need to realize that licenses for firearms are the same as licenses for anything else, some money has changed hands to have that thing appear in a game.

People do realize that and they're disgusted by it. That's kind of what this whole thing is about. A bit of reading comprehension would do you well.

If people realized that licensing for firearms is the same as anything else, why is this a story? licensed guns have been in games for a while, it's pretty obvious the gun manufacturers are paid for this, why the sudden outrage?

The reasons why are obvious. People trying to distance themselves from atrocity, desperate to appear on the moral high ground, navel-gazing about human nature, and "Egads, is this part of the problem?" (Even though they already had nothing to do with it.) It's the same reasoning that has video games under fire in the first place, so it feels at least a little ironic when I see games industry pundits pontificating about it.

I think it's a bit intellectually dishonest, as well. Unless those same people are willing to boycott games other than Flower and Journey, and be similarly disturbed when Mountain Dew shows up next to a video game.

If no game ever licensed from a firearms manufacturer again, firearms would still get made. And not a single one of them would hurt anyone by itself.

Sounds like the best thing that could have happened to him. Follow your dreams, people. I know there are responsibilities that have to be taken care of, but don't stay in a job you hate.

The Minister has asked the Commissioner (of Revenue, Andrew Treusch) to investigate and take any and all necessary corrective action.

Here's a corrective action: crush souls less.

@ShaggE said:

Did anybody actually expect it to hit a Spring date? Never take the first release announcement seriously. I'm not even betting on it making September, honestly. The phrase "Q1 '14" wouldn't shock me.

Not attacking Rockstar, just to be clear. Just saying that delays are so common, I've stopped trusting any release date that's more than a month off, and even then I have my doubts.

True enough. I'm not sure why companies even bother announcing release dates this far in advance any more. All it seems to do is open them up to criticism when the inevitable delay is announced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the moment for this has passed, especially by the time this actually gets made and released. I tend to think if they were going to make this movie, it should have come out five or so years ago.