Quote:
Dear Jack,
I applaud your work with the videogame industry. I myself am a 17 year old videogame activist. I have a little cousin who is violent in nature already, and am grateful that his less-than-knowing mother has people like you insuring that she doesn't accidentally purchase a violent videogame for my cousin who may begin to foster his violent behaviors because of this videogame simulation. He's 9, going on 10. I mean this with all sincerity.
However, Jack, I don't exactly understand your angle on the videogame industry itself. I don't think there's a single gamer out there who disagrees with you in that violent videogames shouldn't be sold to minors. However, it seems your views against videogames extend far beyond that spectrum.
A specific argument you've opinionated is your stance on the Hot Coffee scandal, something Take Two completely dishonestly lied about. However, the Hot Coffee issue shouldn't BE an issue. Sexual content similar, and worse to that displayed in the hot coffee material have been rated with a Mature rating. The game GTA:SA was also rated M to begin with. In fact, in the second mission, one of the rival gang members is receiving oral sex from a prostitute inside a drug house that the main character and his assailant bust up. This is identical to the 'hidden' content unlocked with the hot coffee mod. What I don't understand is why you're so adamantly focused on this issue. If the major vendors are following their current store policies, children are unable to access this GAME, let alone the extra content unlocked with the Hot Coffee Modification. The only thing I can possibly see this case coming down to is that Take Two flat out lied about the situation, and really posed bad taste in general. I, however, disbelieve that the hot coffee mod is even worth anyone's time, as it doesn't really break the mature rating standards at all, and the AO title was only slapped onto this game to please you and your associates. As a concerned nephew, I really don't think your fight here is helping my aunt keep violent, or sexual games out of my cousin's grasps. You're just fighting a random legal battle in order to give your 'side' more say in these matters.
Another argument you constantly push is that the game Bully is a "Columbine Simulator." When you initially released these responses, the only thing that was known about this game was it's title, and two screenshots. More information has recently been published that perhaps you haven't seen yet.
"Bully takes the Rockstar tradition of groundbreaking and original gameplay and humorous tongue-in-cheek storytelling to an entirely new setting: the schoolyard. As a troublesome schoolboy, you’ll stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks on malicious kids, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the fictitious reform school, Bullworth Academy. Bully is the brutally funny debut title from Rockstar Vancouver and is expected to hit retail shelves in October 2005."
Straight from the game's publisher. According to this information, your commentary of "Columbine Simulator" is spot on. This game will teach 17 year olds and up how to defend themselves against bullies like those that shot up Columbine High.
This brings me to a completely new question. Time and time again you refer to Doom as the Columbine Shooters' "Training Simulation." I don't think that either of us would deny that the minors that terrorized Columbine were indeed violent and psychopathic long before they ever touched a videogame. I can also completely agree that these kids should not have access to violent media. Why is it, then, that you've been supporting Hilary Clinton's efforts to research the effects of violent videogames on children? No one will dispute the fact that violent media in general has a negative effect on children, and a cataclysmic effect on violent youth. This fact is absolutely undisputable, and has already been proven. Why aren't you spending America's tax dollars on a worthy research into what makes those children violent in nature to begin with? Why not direct your efforts directly into giving the FCC the legal authority on minors and videogame sales? You've said that the ESRB is industry supported, and that it is flawed and one sided towards the industry, and even have gone so far as to say that it's a marketing ploy. While I completely disagree, and find those comments almost atrocious, I wonder why then, you haven't worked more towards the goal of government power, rather than your recent slander against gamers and the gaming industry as a whole.
A side note that I'd like to mention here is that you constantly mention that children are being pre-sold violent videogames. This is simply up to individual sales managers of individual store branches. Usually this decision is made [Not to check identification on preorder] because it's a lengthily process that is far more proficient once the games are received, and the buyer can appear and purchase the game in person. This is not the act of the videogame industry, and certainly not an act of entire corporations themselves. I do NOT support the advertising of violent videogames on television, or the marketing of violent videogames to minors. The truth of the matter though, is that children will NOT be able to go to the store when that game is released and pick up their preordered copy. They will be turned away without proper identification.
I'd like to restate that I honestly do believe that what you're doing is a good thing, and I can agree that someone needs to really get in there and make this happen. I however, cannot possibly agree with the offensive, negative, and overall distasteful angles you've platformed off of. It'd be wonderful if your angle was a stance that was more suited FOR gamers, in which we work together to avoid making our children desensitized to violence, and allow them to possibly even enjoy videogames as educational tools for which they can learn and grow in a positive manner, and once they are of age, if they wish, enjoy a harmless media that in itself has never killed a soul, only pixels.
Thank you for your time, and I'd be honored if you'd take the time to respond, and possibly, if we can come to some equal understanding, we can brainstorm some sort of way to clean this entire thing up, so that we can stop disagreeing, and start making changes. I'd honestly like to see this all turn out for the better, where the next generation will be free from violent videogames.
Brandon St. Germaine.
P.S. I don't work for any websites, and am not a participant in any videogame propaganda sites. I would, however, like to ask you if you'd be willing to establish some sort of audio communication to where we can sit down and instead of discussing all of the above issues, instead, discuss our mutual goals for gaming, and allow the discussion of possible solvencies to arise. This'd be a wonderful way to curb all of the negative media parents see from the gaming community, and all of the negative media parents see from the other media about videogamers. We're people with morals too, and we'd love to get our voice out there too.
I applaud your work with the videogame industry. I myself am a 17 year old videogame activist. I have a little cousin who is violent in nature already, and am grateful that his less-than-knowing mother has people like you insuring that she doesn't accidentally purchase a violent videogame for my cousin who may begin to foster his violent behaviors because of this videogame simulation. He's 9, going on 10. I mean this with all sincerity.
However, Jack, I don't exactly understand your angle on the videogame industry itself. I don't think there's a single gamer out there who disagrees with you in that violent videogames shouldn't be sold to minors. However, it seems your views against videogames extend far beyond that spectrum.
A specific argument you've opinionated is your stance on the Hot Coffee scandal, something Take Two completely dishonestly lied about. However, the Hot Coffee issue shouldn't BE an issue. Sexual content similar, and worse to that displayed in the hot coffee material have been rated with a Mature rating. The game GTA:SA was also rated M to begin with. In fact, in the second mission, one of the rival gang members is receiving oral sex from a prostitute inside a drug house that the main character and his assailant bust up. This is identical to the 'hidden' content unlocked with the hot coffee mod. What I don't understand is why you're so adamantly focused on this issue. If the major vendors are following their current store policies, children are unable to access this GAME, let alone the extra content unlocked with the Hot Coffee Modification. The only thing I can possibly see this case coming down to is that Take Two flat out lied about the situation, and really posed bad taste in general. I, however, disbelieve that the hot coffee mod is even worth anyone's time, as it doesn't really break the mature rating standards at all, and the AO title was only slapped onto this game to please you and your associates. As a concerned nephew, I really don't think your fight here is helping my aunt keep violent, or sexual games out of my cousin's grasps. You're just fighting a random legal battle in order to give your 'side' more say in these matters.
Another argument you constantly push is that the game Bully is a "Columbine Simulator." When you initially released these responses, the only thing that was known about this game was it's title, and two screenshots. More information has recently been published that perhaps you haven't seen yet.
"Bully takes the Rockstar tradition of groundbreaking and original gameplay and humorous tongue-in-cheek storytelling to an entirely new setting: the schoolyard. As a troublesome schoolboy, you’ll stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks on malicious kids, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the fictitious reform school, Bullworth Academy. Bully is the brutally funny debut title from Rockstar Vancouver and is expected to hit retail shelves in October 2005."
Straight from the game's publisher. According to this information, your commentary of "Columbine Simulator" is spot on. This game will teach 17 year olds and up how to defend themselves against bullies like those that shot up Columbine High.
This brings me to a completely new question. Time and time again you refer to Doom as the Columbine Shooters' "Training Simulation." I don't think that either of us would deny that the minors that terrorized Columbine were indeed violent and psychopathic long before they ever touched a videogame. I can also completely agree that these kids should not have access to violent media. Why is it, then, that you've been supporting Hilary Clinton's efforts to research the effects of violent videogames on children? No one will dispute the fact that violent media in general has a negative effect on children, and a cataclysmic effect on violent youth. This fact is absolutely undisputable, and has already been proven. Why aren't you spending America's tax dollars on a worthy research into what makes those children violent in nature to begin with? Why not direct your efforts directly into giving the FCC the legal authority on minors and videogame sales? You've said that the ESRB is industry supported, and that it is flawed and one sided towards the industry, and even have gone so far as to say that it's a marketing ploy. While I completely disagree, and find those comments almost atrocious, I wonder why then, you haven't worked more towards the goal of government power, rather than your recent slander against gamers and the gaming industry as a whole.
A side note that I'd like to mention here is that you constantly mention that children are being pre-sold violent videogames. This is simply up to individual sales managers of individual store branches. Usually this decision is made [Not to check identification on preorder] because it's a lengthily process that is far more proficient once the games are received, and the buyer can appear and purchase the game in person. This is not the act of the videogame industry, and certainly not an act of entire corporations themselves. I do NOT support the advertising of violent videogames on television, or the marketing of violent videogames to minors. The truth of the matter though, is that children will NOT be able to go to the store when that game is released and pick up their preordered copy. They will be turned away without proper identification.
I'd like to restate that I honestly do believe that what you're doing is a good thing, and I can agree that someone needs to really get in there and make this happen. I however, cannot possibly agree with the offensive, negative, and overall distasteful angles you've platformed off of. It'd be wonderful if your angle was a stance that was more suited FOR gamers, in which we work together to avoid making our children desensitized to violence, and allow them to possibly even enjoy videogames as educational tools for which they can learn and grow in a positive manner, and once they are of age, if they wish, enjoy a harmless media that in itself has never killed a soul, only pixels.
Thank you for your time, and I'd be honored if you'd take the time to respond, and possibly, if we can come to some equal understanding, we can brainstorm some sort of way to clean this entire thing up, so that we can stop disagreeing, and start making changes. I'd honestly like to see this all turn out for the better, where the next generation will be free from violent videogames.
Brandon St. Germaine.
P.S. I don't work for any websites, and am not a participant in any videogame propaganda sites. I would, however, like to ask you if you'd be willing to establish some sort of audio communication to where we can sit down and instead of discussing all of the above issues, instead, discuss our mutual goals for gaming, and allow the discussion of possible solvencies to arise. This'd be a wonderful way to curb all of the negative media parents see from the gaming community, and all of the negative media parents see from the other media about videogamers. We're people with morals too, and we'd love to get our voice out there too.
Just looking for opinions, suggestions, and the like. I was being completely honest when I said I support some of his views, as he has fantastic points on a lot of issues. And I really do want to change what's been going on in the industry. I just don't exactly agree with some of his methods, and a lot of his propaganda. If he responds to this the way I hope he will, than maybe he really isn't the attention hungry person we all assume to believe he is. Perhaps he's just horribly outspoken, and he hasn't gotten anything but negative responses from gamers. I believe that e-mailing him with attacks, calling him names on other threads coughpagewizardcough and whatnot doesn't do anything for our cause, and just makes us look a lot like he's talking. I personally think gamers would like to think they're pretty morally enlightened. A lot of them are pretty violent people, but I don't exactly blame that on videogames. However, those people are really giving us a bad name.
JediKirby
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
