Posts by Thrik

http://uk.media.pc.ign.com/media/748/748377/imgs_1.html

Yeah, as ifO has demonstrated the main problem with Quake Wars is that people are going to see the word "Quake" and immediately associate it with dark, gloomy deathmatch. The reality is it's best compared to Battlefield and Team Fortress, and possibly even Tribes 2 (it has limited jetpacks and supposedly you can ski to a limited extent like in Tribes )

Timeline-wise, sure.

It kind of sits in a weird place of its own though. I mean, is Enemy Territory: Quake Wars really part of the Enemy Territory series or the Quake series? Does Enemy Territory: Quake Wars play more like the original Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or does it play more like Quake? But if Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory played like Wolfenstein and Quake Wars: Enemy Territory plays like Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, does that make Quake Wars: Enemy Territory linked with Wolfenstein? And what of the man with the spotted shirt??

Not more like Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, then?

But yeah, this really isn't to be considered a sequel to any of the Quakes as such. I can see that easily confusing a lot of people though, considering how ambiguously games are titled these days.

Nah, no chance. I'd rather wait for the final, polished product rather than play a unbalanced, buggy build and experience it properly. From what I've heard from current testers it is indeed quite rough, and I've never personally played a beta that didn't piss me off a fair bit with its issues even though they're inevitable.

You need one of these, Mazy.

It normally is spacer, which would make me think that Manhunt 2 is considerably more disturbing that most of us believe.

It's incredibly rarely that the BBFC gets involved with any kind of outright banning, usually only going so far as to require content modifications (not that you hear about these too often). The fact that we have such a loose limit on what's seen across all entertainment mediums is proof of this.

I mean the possibility is there for the BBFC to just be banning it purely to satisfy a political cause, but I'd be inclined to believe not personally. It's not exactly unlikely that Rockstar could have turned up the heat following their string of controversies, but then gotten bitten by their boldness.

I'm starting to repeat myself a bit now so I think I'll keep away from this thread for a while.

I make the differentiation between murder and rape because one largely remains a cultural taboo in the UK while the other does not. In the artistic sense, of course; naturally both are unacceptable on a real-life level.

But really, I've said myself that you can't really justify games being banned exactly because of films like Saw. I'm not sure why you're basically using the same things I said to make an opposing point.

And sure, in an ideal world kids wouldn't play these games. The problem is that they do because of the widespread lack of education about what games contain, so even if you personally parent your children brilliantly you can guarantee at least one of their friends will have parents who just blindly buy them any 18+ game they ask for.

It's like most parents wouldn't dream of letting their kids watch an 18+ film, or at least not without thoroughly reviewing it themselves and then deciding afterwards to what degree it coincides with their own morals regarding what a child should see. This same line of consideration simply doesn't exist with games for most parents, which is the most major problem in my eyes.

As I said earlier, the banning of a game by the same authority that reviews films being thrown all over the media might go some way towards making people realise that games aren't just 8-bit pieces of shit anymore that're incapable of evoking strong emotion or portraying terrible things. Not taking them seriously remains a huge problem.

And as I also said earlier, I personally don't care if Manhunt 2 is used as a tool to achieve this particular agenda. It serves Rockstar right for trying so hard to foster controversy (although nowhere near as much as Running With Scissors).

Don't steer this thread into a discussion of whether or not games can have behavioural effects on people Rick because that's not what I'm trying to say at all. I don't believe games have the capacity to turn a perfectly normal person into a murderer or a rapists, no matter when in life they're exposed to it. It'd take additional variables to do that, such as being brainwashed with one -- but that's a completely different subject.

All the BBFC have done is look at Manhunt 2 and decided it's too much for the general audience, it's something that should not be encouraged to be sold in this culture, and it's something that is generally considered too extreme for the vast majority of people -- many of whom might not realise before buying it.

The same thing has happened to various films and other mediums over the years. It's nothing new, even in the games industry. While I'm sure Jack Thompson and his friends will be all over this like HIV on a prostitute, I doubt they would have banned this game unless it was severely distasteful.

But as I've said numerous times in this thread now, banning games like Manhunt 2 simply cannot be justified when films like SAW are allowed onto the market. The better approach would be to better educate people about what these ratings actually mean -- especially parents.

At the moment many people don't realise how extreme the content in a game can be and they don't approach them with the same "Okay, this is an 18 so it's going to be either really explicit or really violent; I'd better read about it first" attitude that they do with films.

There is a big difference between a film that depicts a rapist and a game that puts you in the shoes of one and encourages/obligates you to do the deed.

If you can't see why, then you really are ridiculous.

More seriously though, this is why in my above post I argued that parent education and more consistent rating would be far more effective than banning games like Manhunt.

I also don't approve of young kids playing the likes of San Andreas, but I know some of my younger sister's friends who're 9/10 have the game and that they play it while round there. Banning the game completely would clumsily achieve my desire of them not getting to play it, but so would making sure parents understand that the content is not fucking suitable for kids and not letting any of them play it.

The ratings system in games isn't taken too seriously at the moment, despite the same authority who rates films in this country dealing with them (and was responsible for banning Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the 70s). Perhaps a case of a game being completely banned like this and hitting the headlines might help parents realise that these games aren't just rated for fun and that the content really can be quite intense.

My stance on Manhunt itself remains fairly indifferent. I don't really care if it's used as a scapegoat/utility for sending out a message.

Context is the foundation of all in life.

I severely doubt it'll attract more sales as a result of this considering the opportunity for anyone in the UK to impulse buy it is removed. Your theory holds true if it does come out after all, though.

Yeah, exactly. Most parents here don't actually realise that games can be so violent and adult in nature, which is why I think so many of them casually buy something like San Andreas for an 8-year-old without thinking anything of it.

It's pretty annoying that I know my younger siblings are seeing the kind of stuff those games have in them while going round and there's not a great deal you can do about it without coming across as an old asshole (especially if you try and lecture their parents, god forbid). This is why I think games like Manhunt not being on the market period isn't a particularly bad thing.

But as I said right up in my first post, it's hard to criticise the game when similarly violent games and films are freely available. The ratings system needs to be more consistent across all mediums and parents need to be more educated. I know PEGI is trying hard to do this with their refreshed, more informative site, but more is needed.

Censorship is always a touchy issue. I personally stand with the belief that it is acceptable to deny release to the most extreme examples of violence out there unless it's handled in a very tactful manner that goes some way to educate about the people who do it (like films who deal with rapists/etc as primary characters tend to) and look into their minds.

Yeah, I suppose you could say Manhunt lets you see inside the mind of a deranged stalking, murdering fuck. Not in a very intelligent way though really, is it?

Probably for similar reasons that an explicit, graphic film following a group of guys going around raping young girls while painting the group as the protagonists would almost certainly be banned.

We don't live in a country where absolutely any form of artistic expression is allowed. There are boundaries, despite what Rockstar seem to think. This has been proven in the past, and it's just been proven again. I think if anything this is more of a message from the BBFC that getting more and more extreme/mindless isn't going to be tolerated. And from what I've read about Manhunt 2, it is (Was?) indeed going that way.

And yes, by the looks of it it won't be released here. They explicitly state that while they do consider censorship and content changes an option with most games, Manhunt 2 isn't one of them. It's been completely denied release, and I presume the changes required to get it through would be extremely extensive.

I'm kind of torn to be honest. On the one hand I don't think the world will be any worse off with a game that basically capitalises upon stalking and murdering (as opposed to other games which generally have some kind of motivation for doing so you can relate to), I find it difficult to criticise its deployment when we've got games like Postal out there, and films like Saw.

I'd imagine a major factor in the banning is of course the fact that the Wii version will almost certainly involve graphic reproductions of the murder with your own movements, which does take things to a slightly different level. Especially when, despite whatever anyone says, we all know full well that kids easily have access to these games, in large part of because of parent ignorance.

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my younger brother/sisters acting out the thrusts of a stabbing murder while a victim is mutilated in the name of fun, and indeed they wouldn't be allowed to play something of that level at home, but I know they'll get access to it at friends' houses because their parents don't really have the common sense to work out that an 18-rated game isn't suitable for a 9-year-old.

As far as the overall picture goes, I think this is probably a good move. Games that completely glorify mindless violence have never really worked for me, and I thought the Postal series was absolutely pathetic. Until game ratings are better monitored I don't think allowing something that is quite this graphic out there would be a good idea.

But then, I don't have a taste for these type of games so at the end of the day I don't really give a shit.

By the way, if a film was released commercially that is nothing more than two hours of extremely violent acted-out murders with no real justification, what would you think of the person who bought and watched it gleefully?

That's another thing that comes with experience.

You can pretty much get CSS pixel perfect in all browsers once you understand what it is that makes them vary so much; if you come from a table background, making this habitual change can be a bit more difficult. My blog is a simplistic and old but valid example.

Not using absolute positioning except for container floats (which are inherently absolute) is a vital rule of thumb to get used to, because relative positioning generally goes smoothly for all browsers while the opposite can be said of extensive absolute positioning.

The biggest mistake most new CSS users make is thinking that the way it works is you put absolute positioning on everything, then move it out from the corner/top of the page with top: and left:, or margin:. This is completely ill-advised on every level and I recommend tutorials.

There really isn't that much difference between CSS and tables once you understand how the CSS box model actually works. I can say this with reasonable confidence as it's my full time job, and I'd be very surprised if you could throw a layout at me that I can't efficiently turn into a pure CSS page.

The trick is basically learning with experience how to approach each type of design element. It's not like tables where you essentially just put cells everywhere and then nest and nest them to get things working properly; in that respect there's a bit more skill and learning curve involved, although as a result it a lot easier to do layouts like these. (the source is clearly far more editable than a table-based design would be, which is vital when you work on commercial sites for clients that whole teams of people edit).

Although tables do have the distinct advantage of being able to stretch to 100% heights and a few other minor things, they can't actually do this once HTML is put into strict mode -- again, something that quality standards of commercial design often require. Therefore the only real advantage they've got is the ability to group everything into holding containers, which CSS can just as easily do if you know what you're doing.

But for god's sake, learn how clear: works in CSS or floats will forever be your worst nightmare.

CSS might seem complicated and cumbersome at first, but once you crack it you can work very quickly and the overall precision you gain is well worth it. Especially when you have clients who want you to move that header text two pixels to the right (which seriously has happened).

Hoegaarden is pretty nice if it's the same fruity one I recall having a few times, but I only know how to pronounce it as "hoe garden" which is slightly embarrassing if I'm wrong.

Are you the guys who voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger during the 2004 US Presidential election?