Geeky in the bad way

"nobs"

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:41:02 GMT

Lunch was entended by two hours because the power in the office went. I currently have not just a cup of tea but also a packet of mini hob-nobs. Life is good.

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:08:27 GMT

http://bm03.livejournal.com/91512.html

Late!

Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:50:20 GMT

http://bm03.livejournal.com/91217.html

"pre-teenage girls"

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:49:35 GMT

A brief discussion on the BBFC's decision to ban the game Manhunt 2 with one-time GamesTM freelancer and former Head of State, Iain turned into an incredibly rambling, multi-layered discussion touching on game censorship, the current gaming political climate in the UK, government support for the games industry, the very concept of art itself, and not one, but two implied threats of non-consentual anal intercourse.

Session Start (illbeoffthen@hotmail.com:Iain): Fri Jun 22 14:37:18 2007
[14:37] Iain: your first clue that an internet debate is getting out of hand: "it's fine to have murder in games, because murdered people can't be offended by it" (I'm paraphrasing) - I think I'm going to leave that Manhunt 2 thread on NTSC-UK well alone now...
[14:37] beemoh.co.uk: that's the BEST RESPONSE EVER
[14:38] Iain: I was almost speechless. so I commented that it was most twisted logic I've ever seen, even though I'd been on US Republican Party Internet forums.
[14:39] beemoh.co.uk: :)
[14:39] Iain: I love the way Take Two have come out with the classic "Fine Art" defence.
[14:39] Iain: well, you can use people's blood to recreate Jackson Pollock paintings, I suppose
[14:39] beemoh.co.uk: yes, I read your blogpost
[14:42] beemoh.co.uk: TBH, I'm not overly impressed by the BBFC's decision
[14:42] Iain: really? why's that?
[14:43] beemoh.co.uk: Briefly, it's because it's currently Open Season on games (again), and I think that had more to do with the rating than the game's content
[14:44] beemoh.co.uk: As a result, the ruling will have effects wider-reaching than just Manhunt 2
[14:46] Iain: hmm - agree to a point, but it's only the second game in ten years that the BBFC have refused to certify. it's hardly like they're banning everything wholesale. Bioshock, for example passed at 18. and in that you can kill pre-teenage girls.
[14:46] beemoh.co.uk: not any more, aparrently
[14:46] Iain: I think it's more a case of Rockstar reaping what it's sown
[14:47] Iain: I heard Bioshock passed uncut
[14:47] beemoh.co.uk: I'm sure I read somewhere they had to take the little girl-killing out. Maybe it's just in the US
[14:48] beemoh.co.uk: Either way, I think I'll start from the top
[14:48] beemoh.co.uk: mostly because I'm going to be talking to my MP soon, and it'll help me straighten out my story
[14:49] Iain: talking to your MP?
[14:50] beemoh.co.uk: yes. I'm not happy with the way the government treats games in general, so, being unemployed, I'm going to pass the time by getting up my MP's arse
[14:50] Iain: not literally, of course :)
[14:50] Iain: (I hope)
[14:50] beemoh.co.uk: depends what will get things done :P
[14:50] Iain: lol
[14:51] beemoh.co.uk: Right. From the top, we had the Resistance: Fall Of Man thing from a few weeks ago
[14:51] Iain: indeed
[14:51] Iain: plus Law & Order getting withdrawn for the Jamie Bulger photo
[14:52] beemoh.co.uk: that's the one that's pushed me over the edge
[14:52] Iain: the timing on that one stinks if you ask me
[14:52] beemoh.co.uk: it does
[14:52] Iain: why wait four years?
[14:52] beemoh.co.uk: but, again, I'll come to that
[14:52] beemoh.co.uk: four? I heard two.
[14:53] beemoh.co.uk: The thing is, I'm of the opinion that Manchester Cathedral wouldn't have made any mention of Resistance had it been a film or a TV show
[14:54] Iain: erm - that's because they would have had to ask permission to film there...
[14:54] beemoh.co.uk: and give the church a massive handout
[14:55] beemoh.co.uk: (we also saw this with Rainbow Six Vegas)
[14:57] Iain: (Law & Order: Double or Nothing - nearly 4 years old: (Link: http://www.mobygames.com/game/law-order-ii-double-or-nothing)http://www.mobygames.com/game/law-order-ii-double-or-nothing)
[14:57] beemoh.co.uk: ta
[14:57] beemoh.co.uk: but even if they were to complain, they wouldn't have done it (or it wouldn't have played out) in the showy way that it has, simply because it's far easier to drag a game backwards through the Daily Mail and claim the moral high ground than it is a film or a TV show
[14:58] beemoh.co.uk: (with certain allowances made for Reality shows)
[14:58] Iain: the thing I don't like about the Law & Order pulling is that it makes a subtle link between child abduction and videogames
[14:59] beemoh.co.uk: As a result of the Manchester Cathedral thing, we have the beginning of Open Season
[14:59] Iain: the Madeleine McCann story is running out of legs, plus you have the whole Manhunt 2 thing - I can't call it coincidence myself (wearing my cynical hat)
[14:59] beemoh.co.uk: Madeline McCann will not run out of legs for as long as he keeps getting his wallet nicked
[15:00] beemoh.co.uk: this way we get McCann and Chavs in the same story
[15:00] beemoh.co.uk: Tabloid heaven!
[15:00] Iain: *rolls eyes*
[15:00] Iain: the news media are fucks, really. but that's nothing new
[15:00] beemoh.co.uk: yes
[15:00] Iain: the problem with videogames is that they continue to make themselves easy targets
[15:01] beemoh.co.uk: I disagree- my point with the whole Open Season metaphor is that games are easy targets through little or no fault of their own
[15:02] beemoh.co.uk: this is not to say the games industry is in no way guilty
[15:03] Iain: okay, but you release a game like Manhunt 2, where you're playing a mentally disturbed murderer, you're not doing yourself any favours. especially when the game does absolutely nothing to create a mitigating context for the level of violence.
[15:03] beemoh.co.uk: (Specifically, to say that Thompson, to give one particuarily noisy example, doesn't have it in for Take Two specifically is a bit of a stretch)
[15:03] Iain: I think there has to be a point where gamers have to stop defending the indefensible (from a non-gamer's point of view)
[15:04] beemoh.co.uk: At the risk of sounding like a reactionary American
[15:04] beemoh.co.uk: that's just straight censorship
[15:05] Iain: I agree - but you have to work within the boundaries of the society you live in
[15:05] beemoh.co.uk: If you're going to ban Manhunt 2, Saw and Hostel have to go as well
[15:05] Iain: if you don't like censorship, move to Scandinavia...
[15:05] Iain: we had this argument on NTSC-UK
[15:06] Iain: the difference between a film like that and Manhunt is that a) you're the perpetrator of the violence, not a passive observer, and b) the film makes you try and empathise with the victims, not the killer.
[15:07] Iain: it's a very different mental leap
[15:08] beemoh.co.uk: From what I have gleaned from the reviews of MH2, the lead is the victim- MH2 is a defence game, not an attack game, and secondly, the BBFC themselves put out a report that said that playing games has less of an effect on the viewer than watching a film
[15:08] Iain: there's a difference between getting a thrill from being scared silly and getting a thrill from murdering and torturing people
[15:09] Iain: so castrating an NPC with a pair of pliers is an act of self-defence, is it?
[15:09] beemoh.co.uk: if it stops the NPC from killing you, yes
[15:10] Iain: but what if he's already helpless?
[15:10] beemoh.co.uk: then that's your decision, not the game's
[15:10] beemoh.co.uk: (unless you specifically have to do it to progress, which neither of us know if you do)
[15:11] Iain: the designers had a choice not to put it in, as well. what's the point?
[15:11] beemoh.co.uk: the designers also had the choice to just do a cutesy Mario ripoff, but if they all did, that'd be boing
[15:11] beemoh.co.uk: boring*
[15:12] Iain: it's like the GHOUL system in Soldier of Fortune II. it went beyond the point of "realism" to sadism. just shooting people in the face to see how their heads fall apart
[15:12] beemoh.co.uk: your decision again.
[15:12] Iain: developer's decision to allow it, again.
[15:12] Iain: totally unnecessary in the context of the game.
[15:13] beemoh.co.uk: I'm going to point out that there are two endings to Manhunt 2- a 'positive' one, and a 'negative' one.
[15:14] beemoh.co.uk: You get the 'positive' one by killing fewer people.
[15:14] Iain: but you're still a murderer. which is morally acceptable to the average Daily Mail reader, naturally.
[15:14] beemoh.co.uk: the average Mail reader is an idiot, broadly speaking
[15:15] beemoh.co.uk: The only way games can represent any kind of Moral Compass is to allow for a south.
[15:15] Iain: I agree - and it's utterly arbitrary from country to country.
[15:16] beemoh.co.uk: But isn't the point of art to represent the artist's moral compass, and make the person experiencing the art think about his own?
[15:16] Iain: in Japan you have hentai games (Battle Raper, for example), whereas in Germany - well, you know how restrictive they are
[15:16] beemoh.co.uk: (I know art has a greater point than that, but it'll do for this discussion)
[15:17] beemoh.co.uk: Therefore, Manhunt 2 is infinitely more moral than, say , Mario 64
[15:17] Iain: 0_o
[15:17] Iain: go on. dig that hole.
[15:17] beemoh.co.uk: Okay.
[15:18] beemoh.co.uk: In MH 2, you're killing to survive
[15:18] Iain: you're equating humans with koopas.
[15:18] beemoh.co.uk: life is life
[15:19] beemoh.co.uk: if you kill somebody in MH2 and somebody sees, they'll panic, and potentially, attack you back (again, out of self-defence) or alert somebody else who will
[15:20] Iain: think about that statement...
[15:20] beemoh.co.uk: It's only half a statement
[15:21] beemoh.co.uk: Therefore: you are more likely to survive the ordeals in the game if you kill fewer people
[15:21] beemoh.co.uk: the game encourages pacifism
[15:21] beemoh.co.uk: Hitman is a better example
[15:21] Iain: not when the reward system encourages you to kill.
[15:22] beemoh.co.uk: the reward is, broadly speaking, the positive ending
[15:22] Iain: the pacificist approach only really works in one game: Deus Ex.
[15:22] beemoh.co.uk: not played Deus, but I'll come back to it
[15:22] Iain: you've not played DX? good grief.
[15:22] beemoh.co.uk: yes, sacrilege, I know
[15:23] beemoh.co.uk: always been a console person.
[15:23] beemoh.co.uk: and never had a PS2
[15:23] beemoh.co.uk: In Mario 64, however
[15:23] beemoh.co.uk: if you kill an enemy, most of the other enemies won't notice
[15:24] beemoh.co.uk: (although, to be fair, they're going to attack you anyway)
[15:24] beemoh.co.uk: and worse, a coin pops out
[15:24] beemoh.co.uk: you're actively getting paid to kill
[15:27] Iain: heh - I see where you're coming from, but your logic isn't going to fly with your MP on the grounds of abstraction of the violence. there is a generally perceived moral difference between killing a human and killing (say) a fly. or a robot. or a cat.
[15:27] Iain: why do you think that most enemies in games are portrayed as being somehow sub-human?
[15:27] beemoh.co.uk: what gives you that idea?
[15:27] Iain: locusts in Gears of War, the clones in FEAR, etc
[15:28] Iain: zombies in just about every game under the sun
[15:28] beemoh.co.uk: oh, sorry, misread
[15:28] beemoh.co.uk: I thought you were referring to my perception, not those in the game canon
[15:29] Iain: killing, murdering, by most people's moral compass is REALLY BADLY WRONG. swatting a fly or treading on a spider might be bad karma, but it's not all so bad
[15:29] Iain: so killing zombies = fine.
[15:29] Iain: killing aliens trying to exterminate humanity = fine
[15:30] beemoh.co.uk: but: the zombies are attacking
[15:30] beemoh.co.uk: the aliens are attacking
[15:30] beemoh.co.uk: the locust are attacking
[15:30] Iain: killing mental patients = ummm
[15:30] Iain: not so good
[15:30] beemoh.co.uk: that depends if the mental patients are attacking
[15:30] Iain: hell, even killing prostitutes in GTA 3 is frowned upon
[15:30] Iain: because they're *human*
[15:30] Iain: not an elf, or a zombie or an alien. or a koopa.
[15:31] beemoh.co.uk: but are the prostitutes attackign?
[15:31] beemoh.co.uk: attacking*
[15:31] Iain: abstraction is vitally important when it comes to violence
[15:31] beemoh.co.uk: still doesn't really make it right, does it?
[15:31] Iain: no, and I'm not saying that it does
[15:32] beemoh.co.uk: we'll take Oblivion as another example
[15:32] Iain: but that doesn't mean to say that slaughtering people in Manhunt is any more right either
[15:32] Iain: that was my next example
[15:32] Iain: plenty of civilians you can slaughter
[15:32] beemoh.co.uk: that makes a very clear distinction between 'people' and 'animals', to the point where there's a visible statistic for both in the menus.
[15:33] Iain: yeah, but "people" are Nords, Elves, Orcs - not specifically human. plus the game world is so abstracted from Earth that it's clearly identifiable as fantasy
[15:33] beemoh.co.uk: bear with me
[15:33] beemoh.co.uk: all the 'animals' are set to auto-attack
[15:34] beemoh.co.uk: there are no domestic cats, only mountain lions
[15:34] Iain: the deer don't attack you.
[15:34] Iain: and you can still kill them.
[15:34] beemoh.co.uk: very true
[15:34] beemoh.co.uk: so we'll brush over that and get to my main point
[15:34] Iain: lol
[15:35] beemoh.co.uk: if you attack- or worse- kill a 'people' NPC, a bounty is put upon your head, and all the guards come after you
[15:35] beemoh.co.uk: unless *they* attack first
[15:36] beemoh.co.uk: (Highwaymen, bandits etc)
[15:36] Iain: yup.
[15:37] beemoh.co.uk: this is seen in Manhunt 2, albeit on a less specific, yet greater scale, in the form of the positive ending.
[15:37] beemoh.co.uk: (see also Hitman, with the clean escape and the end-of-level rating)
[15:38] beemoh.co.uk: You brought up Gears, for instance, where all the enemies are set to just attack you
[15:39] beemoh.co.uk: Or, say, Mario 64, where all the enemies are set to just attack you
[15:39] beemoh.co.uk: Hell, Mario 64 has suicide bombers!
[15:39] Iain: the difference with MH2 (from what I've heard so far) is that there is no in-game "law enforcement" as it were. it's not like shooting someone infront of a policeman in Vice City. you've got absolute free reign. there's no cause and effect - nothing to enforce you to moderate your violence. you've got an absolute free reign to be as much of an utter bastard as you like.
[15:40] beemoh.co.uk: except for the otherwise non-hostile NPCs who will only get hostile if they see you kill someone
[15:40] beemoh.co.uk: martial law is still law
[15:41] beemoh.co.uk: We can also, to an extent, consider Euthanasia
[15:41] Iain: might makes right is hardly a compelling argument....
[15:41] Iain: Euthanasia, in case you hadn't noticed, is illegal.
[15:41] Iain: in this country at least
[15:42] beemoh.co.uk: but controversially so
[15:42] beemoh.co.uk: we both know the argument for Euthanasia, that a death is better than the life they would otherwise have
[15:42] Iain: we're back to moral relativism again
[15:42] beemoh.co.uk: which Manhunt can stir debate upon!
[15:42] Iain: erm. now you've utterly lost me.
[15:42] beemoh.co.uk: If we assume that the main character is the most sane, we should assume that he has a duty of care, of sorts, to the other, less sane patients
[15:43] Iain: ...
[15:44] beemoh.co.uk: The lead character, Daniel Lamb (I'm going to start calling him Daniel because it's less cumbersome than The Lead Character) isn't just some random psycho
[15:44] Iain: yes, I'm going to euthanise you by smashing your face into an electrical fuse box.
[15:44] beemoh.co.uk: you're taking the tabloid approach I originally wanted to condemn, but we got sidetracked
[15:44] beemoh.co.uk: once more, bear with me
[15:45] Iain: your MP is going to take the tabloid approach. because that's where the votes are.
[15:45] Iain: just preparing you...
[15:45] beemoh.co.uk: unless I try and point out to him that there are some of us in his constituency that don't think like that
[15:46] beemoh.co.uk: If I don't at least try, I'm as bad as the tabloids- all it takes for evil to triumph, etc
[15:46] Iain: there are more of them than there are of you... believe me.
[15:46] beemoh.co.uk: (Legally I'm still a student! I'm allowed to be an idealist!)
[15:46] Iain: lol
[15:46] beemoh.co.uk: (yes moral relativism)
[15:47] Iain: all I'm saying is that if you think games have a bad press, you're not going to change public opinion by stepping in to defend something the common man is going to think is utterly abhorrent.
[15:47] beemoh.co.uk: again, sidetracked- I probably won't go into this much depth about MH2 with my MP, the Bulger thing is the issue
[15:48] Iain: it's all very well crying "censorship!" - but the games industry (and gamers) need to be smarter about picking their battles
[15:48] beemoh.co.uk: but my original point is that if it wasn't open season, this wouldn't be a battle
[15:49] Iain: very true - but you're not going to change anything by fighting a battle that you're never going to win.
[15:49] beemoh.co.uk: if MH2 had got an 18 rating, (which it probaly would have done a month or so ago) there would be less uproar, because it wouldn't be GAME SO VIOLENT THEY HAD TO BAN IT
[15:49] beemoh.co.uk: more on page 6
[15:50] Iain: you have to change perceptions by highlighting the more positive aspects of gaming, rather than defending the indefensible.
[15:50] beemoh.co.uk: there'd still be complaints, you understand, but it wouldn't be the uphill struggle it is today
[15:50] Iain: even the most neophyte of RTS gamers can tell you defending the indefensible is not a wise strategy
[15:51] beemoh.co.uk: but would they tell you to stop fighting on one front just because it's less likely to succeed than the other, or would you continue on both?
[15:52] beemoh.co.uk: highlighting the positive is all well and good, until Vaz/Thompson/the Daily Mail point at the negative
[15:52] Iain: cutting your losses to regroup and counter-attack at the enemy's weakest point would be the best thing to do
[15:53] Iain: the thing about those people is that they never let facts get in the way of a good argument :S
[15:53] beemoh.co.uk: you need to actively counter the negative as well as accentuate the positive
[15:53] beemoh.co.uk: this really is a seperate argument, that needs discusing on its own
[15:53] Iain: brb
[15:53] beemoh.co.uk: kk
[15:56] Iain: back
[15:56] beemoh.co.uk: right
[15:57] beemoh.co.uk: if you can see a thumbnail of that, just cancel it off
[15:58] beemoh.co.uk: my point with the RTS example puts you in the shoes of the green army in the middle
[15:59] beemoh.co.uk: surrounded by the reds
[15:59] beemoh.co.uk: if you can get to that river, you can pull the battle back
[16:00] beemoh.co.uk: now, do you do this by making everyone face West, or do you do it by slowly forcing your army east while everybody keeps slashing outwards?
[16:00] beemoh.co.uk: forcing it West, sorry
[16:02] Iain: not wanting to invoke Godwin's Law, but just ask Hitler about how successful waging a war on multiple fronts is.
[16:02] beemoh.co.uk: (Link: http://www.beemoh.co.uk/tempimages/war.JPG)http://www.beemoh.co.uk/tempimages/war.JPG , if it's not transferring
[16:02] Iain: is that the 2012 olympics logo? ;)
[16:03] beemoh.co.uk: heh
[16:03] beemoh.co.uk: my point is, if you were to have all your army face to the west, the red army would just ream them all from behind
[16:04] Iain: not if you ran fast enough ;)
[16:04] beemoh.co.uk: they still need to defend themselves from the attack from the other sides, even if they're trying to move in one specific direction
[16:04] beemoh.co.uk: smartarse
[16:04] Iain: heh
[16:05] beemoh.co.uk: it's not a matter of doing one or the other
[16:06] beemoh.co.uk: on my level, or me and my MP's level, in a sense, it is- we are, in essence, on the east side of the green army- me slashing away to the west will be ineffective
[16:06] beemoh.co.uk: (Friendly fire is off for the purposes of the example)
[16:07] beemoh.co.uk: (or on- I never really understood that one)
[16:07] Iain: heh - the way Rockstar make and publicise games, I think Friendly Fire is very much *on*.
[16:08] beemoh.co.uk: another individual would have to take up the fighting on the west side
[16:08] beemoh.co.uk: but as an industry or a community, then yes, we must do noth
[16:08] beemoh.co.uk: both*
[16:09] Iain: I think we need to step back and look at the overall context of the argument. the original GTA got FAR much more bad press than this, and that didn't stop violent games being made.
[16:10] beemoh.co.uk: GTA didn't get banned
[16:10] Iain: no, but Carmageddon did.
[16:10] Iain: and I don't recall that ever hitting the news
[16:10] beemoh.co.uk: it did
[16:11] beemoh.co.uk: it didn't get it *as much* because we didn't have the dedicated games news outlets we have today in the form of Gamespot and CVG and Gamepolitics etc, and, of course, it wasn't open season at the time
[16:11] beemoh.co.uk: but it still got it
[16:11] Iain: banning two games in ten years is hardly much cause for alarm, really. be glad you don't live in Australia
[16:11] beemoh.co.uk: You've pretty much walked into my other argument there
[16:12] beemoh.co.uk: An example I was going to use upconversation (as opposed to upthread)
[16:12] beemoh.co.uk: and have used on the GP forum
[16:12] beemoh.co.uk: is that a defence often used by the anti-game crowd is the Slippery Slope
[16:13] beemoh.co.uk: that if they let the games industry get away with [x], then we'll only try and get away with [y] further down the line, where [y] is worse than [x]
[16:13] Iain: seriously - if we were ever going to fall down the slippery slope, it would have happened ten years ago when Carmageddon got banned.
[16:14] beemoh.co.uk: the slippery slope theory may well be true
[16:14] beemoh.co.uk: but it works both ways
[16:14] Iain: the games industry was tiny then, now it's mainstream and makes more money than cinema and DVD combined
[16:14] beemoh.co.uk: that's a dubious statistice
[16:14] beemoh.co.uk: statistic*
[16:14] Iain: the point is that the games industry is far beyond a niche market now
[16:14] beemoh.co.uk: it's not
[16:15] beemoh.co.uk: if we let them get away with banning Manhunt 2, then next it's GTA. Then it's Gears. And Halo. Until all we're left with is Teletubbies Adventures In Sitting Around
[16:15] Iain: this is the same argument we had after Hungerford about "video nasties" because the gunman had watched Rambo. come on,
[16:16] beemoh.co.uk: it's best to think of it less as a "slope" and more of a "point"
[16:17] beemoh.co.uk: where the two status quos are linked by a rope which goes over the tip
[16:17] beemoh.co.uk: (here breaks the metaphor)
[16:18] Iain: I think a billion pound a year industry has more weight with the government than a wee bit of moral outrage. better tax revenues...
[16:19] beemoh.co.uk: but this is a billion pound a year industry that, for all intents and purposes, the government seems to be trying its hardest to destroy
[16:19] Iain: how, exactly?
[16:20] beemoh.co.uk: the DTI got shot of its games consultant recently
[16:20] Iain: on what grounds?
[16:20] beemoh.co.uk: cut in funding
[16:21] beemoh.co.uk: these appearences of games in parliament where there is no internal defence of games
[16:22] beemoh.co.uk: a steadfast refusal by the government to provide any kind of aid for the industry, despite the film and TV industries getting massive handouts and initiatives every year
[16:23] Iain: *shrugs* - none of that changes the fact that the majority of the games on the shelves aren't made within the UK anyway
[16:24] beemoh.co.uk: because the government won't help!
[16:24] Iain: so? they're not under any obligation
[16:24] beemoh.co.uk: it's in their best interests to do so
[16:24] beemoh.co.uk: especially if they're going to give TV and Film the aid they do
[16:25] Iain: it's a Catch 22, really. bad press for games = no funding. it's some catch, that Catch 22.
[16:26] beemoh.co.uk: there is an argument in favour of the licence fee that the BBC's lack of commercial reliance has a positive knock-on effect in the quality of all television shown in the UK
[16:27] beemoh.co.uk: this, as one opposed to the licence fee, is an argument I'm actually willing to buy into
[16:27] beemoh.co.uk: extending this to games
[16:28] beemoh.co.uk: a lot of games rely on controversy to sell, including Rockstar's titles, and not because they're bad games, per se, but because of the size of the market
[16:29] beemoh.co.uk: to the point where otherwise acceptable games have to become controversial
[16:29] Iain: Rockstar's making a rod for its own back here, though. and then whinging about it because it went to far.
[16:29] beemoh.co.uk: government aid (this does not have to mean money!) can go some way to helping this.
[16:31] beemoh.co.uk: Rockstar games sell, though
[16:31] beemoh.co.uk: the highest selling game ever over here is GTA3
[16:32] *** You have been disconnected. Fri Jun 22 16:32:14 2007.
[16:33] *** "Iain" signed on at Fri Jun 22 16:33:36 2007.
[16:33] Iain: an even better way of helping would be the games industry getting a clue about how to correctly advertise its products... and let's face it - the general level of ignorance the public has about games doesn't help, either.
[16:34] Iain: again, the media here is at fault. because informative journalism doesn't sell as many papers as scandals.
[16:35] beemoh.co.uk: did you say anything between me saying GTA3 was the highest selling game and you saying "an even better way..."?
[16:35] Iain: I never did find out who bought the copy of Manhunt for the 14 year old in the original Manhunt scandal...
[16:35] Iain: uh, no
[16:35] beemoh.co.uk: right, just checking
[16:36] Iain: "government aid (this does not have to mean money!) can go some way to helping this."

was the last thing I had

[16:36] beemoh.co.uk: [16:29] Iain: Rockstar's making a rod for its own back here, though. and then whinging about it because it went to far.
[16:29] beemoh.co.uk: government aid (this does not have to mean money!) can go some way to helping this.
[16:31] beemoh.co.uk: Rockstar games sell, though
[16:31] beemoh.co.uk: the highest selling game ever over here is GTA3
[16:37] Iain: that's pure human nature.
[16:37] Iain: how many people do you think are going to illegally import Manhunt 2 now there's been a big media storm about it?
[16:37] beemoh.co.uk: a fair few. It's what happened with A Clockwork Orange
[16:37] Iain: yes, that was a rhetorical question ;)
[16:38] beemoh.co.uk: the thing with the media is that we can't lump it into one entity.
[16:38] Iain: interestingly, it was Kubrick that withdrew A Clockwork Orange from general distribution in the UK, not the BBFC
[16:38] beemoh.co.uk: withdrew it because the BBFC wanted cuts
[16:39] beemoh.co.uk: (AFAIK)
[16:39] Iain: no, he withdrew it because the media were blaming it for copycat killings
[16:39] beemoh.co.uk: did he? oh
[16:39] Iain: and Kubrick said "fuck that for a game of soldiers"
[16:39] beemoh.co.uk: probably a bad move
[16:39] beemoh.co.uk: anyway, re: the media and government game aid
[16:40] beemoh.co.uk: if you look at the national media, you'll notice it's overwhelmingly negative- war, child abduction, the England football team
[16:40] Iain: heh - especially the last ;)
[16:40] beemoh.co.uk: as you get more local, there's a change
[16:40] beemoh.co.uk: the Manchester Evening News, for instance, is about 50/50
[16:41] beemoh.co.uk: we come down to the Macclesfield Express, and it's overwhelmingly positive
[16:41] Iain: that's because no-one wants to know that where they're living is a shithole. it brings down property prices.
[16:41] beemoh.co.uk: well, yes
[16:42] Iain: generalised badness is more palatable
[16:42] Iain: and life-affirming
[16:42] Iain: "I'm glad I don't live there"
[16:42] Iain: "but I'm scared shitless it will come here - burn the immigrants!"
[16:43] beemoh.co.uk: but don't kill game characters! aparrently!
[16:43] beemoh.co.uk: either way, GOVERNMENT GAME GRANT BRINGS 500 JOBS TO [region] is going to be a fantastic headline
[16:43] beemoh.co.uk: it may not make the Daily Mail, but it'd do well in the MEN, and it'd probably be front page news if it was in the Macc Express
[16:44] beemoh.co.uk: the big one here, though, is that jobs are jobs
[16:45] Iain: you should know by now that bad news is good news. at least in terms of selling papers.
[16:45] Iain: job losses get reported much more than job creation
[16:46] beemoh.co.uk: never read the Macclesfield Express, have you?
[16:46] beemoh.co.uk: I sneezed the other week, I got the centre spread
[16:46] Iain: can't say I have. but I have read the Congleton Courier (or whatever it's called)
[16:46] beemoh.co.uk: and I don't even live *in* Macclesfield
[16:47] beemoh.co.uk: I also now realise that I should have said "and it was all over the centre spread", but never mind.
[16:47] Iain: I also have fond memories of the Leicester Mercury
[16:47] beemoh.co.uk: anyway, there was this bit on BBC news about somebody opening a supermarket in India, and how the Indian economy could never support it before
[16:47] Iain: GLOBALISATION! EVIL!
[16:47] beemoh.co.uk: it was a largely positive story, TBH
[16:48] Iain: depends how you spin it.
[16:48] beemoh.co.uk: they spun it ositively
[16:48] beemoh.co.uk: or at least as a curio
[16:48] Iain: also loving all the carbon footprint bollocks recently
[16:48] beemoh.co.uk: the story was more about India's improved economy than the supermarket itself
[16:48] Iain: FEEL GUILTY!
[16:49] * beemoh.co.uk farts
[16:49] beemoh.co.uk: carbon that, fuckers
[16:49] Iain: you've just melted a square kilometre of glacier, you fucker
[16:49] beemoh.co.uk: bwahahaha
[16:49] beemoh.co.uk: the thing is, only a fool would consider that all those call centres we opened over there hasn't contributed on a massive scale
[16:49] beemoh.co.uk: to the economy, not the carbon
[16:50] Iain: to the carbon as well.
[16:50] beemoh.co.uk: well, yes.
[16:50] Iain: electricity generation is a huge contributor to carbon emissions
[16:50] beemoh.co.uk: but the carbon's not my point
[16:51] Iain: just wait - the media will find a videogames angle on that soon.
[16:51] beemoh.co.uk: MS are working on it
[16:51] Iain: HAVING THREE GAMES CONSOLES ON STANDARD IS DESTROYING THE PLANET!
[16:51] Iain: *STANDBY*
[16:51] beemoh.co.uk: near enough, I'm using my clipboard ATM, but I'll dig out a GP story in a sec
[16:51] beemoh.co.uk: we look at the broader story with the call centres, and how was it covered over here?
[16:52] beemoh.co.uk: poor customer service and a loss of jobs in the UK
[16:52] beemoh.co.uk: both very real knock-on effects of the indian call centres, which they would be wrong not to cover
[16:52] beemoh.co.uk: both overly sensationalised, obv
[16:52] Iain: just shows you how badly educated and motivated (and expensive) UK workers are.
[16:52] beemoh.co.uk: but still needed drawing attention to
[16:54] beemoh.co.uk: but: the Indian government supported these call centres, and so took our jobs (broadly speaking)
[16:55] beemoh.co.uk: I can't find that GP story I was looking for
[16:55] Iain: I think the decision was more economic that politic, myself. if you can get cheaper, better educated and more motivated workers who will work longer hours for less money, why would you pay surly twats sitting in an office block in Stevenage?
[16:55] beemoh.co.uk: that's saying it from the UK companies perspective
[16:55] Iain: but note that there is a backlash to all that outsourcing going on
[16:56] Iain: several companies make a big thing in their adverts about having UK call centres. Natwest, for example
[16:56] beemoh.co.uk: the Indian Government did help
[16:56] beemoh.co.uk: this is true, and very relevant
[16:57] Iain: not sure you can draw a parallel to making games, though.
[16:57] beemoh.co.uk: the GP story was that the UK Gov has outlawed appliances with standby modes (broadly speaking) which has some knock on effect on consoles
[16:57] beemoh.co.uk: I can
[16:58] beemoh.co.uk: The UK games development community is losing out to their equivalents in Canada, France, New Zealand and some US states where their governments are supporting the industry with tax breaks and grants
[16:59] beemoh.co.uk: it's not a big leap to see developers in the UK shutting up shop and emigrating
[16:59] beemoh.co.uk: I've considered it
[17:00] Iain: yeah, okay - but I'm sure that's not the entire picture. a) is there the development talent here in the UK? b) is it cheaper to run a dev house here compared to France or Canada? and so on...
[17:00] beemoh.co.uk: EA have closed offices and re-opened new ones for tax purposes, and they're quite comfortable financially- imagine what ideas developers whose survival might depend on doing so that is giving?
[17:01] Iain: indeed - most companies make decisions on economic terms
[17:01] beemoh.co.uk: a tax break strikes me as pretty economic
[17:02] beemoh.co.uk: There is definately development talent in the UK- in the N64 days, companies like Rare made the UK the best in Europe for games.
[17:02] beemoh.co.uk: and there must be people who want to be development talent
[17:02] Iain: yeah, but there aren't nearly as many software houses in the UK now than there were 10 years ago
[17:03] beemoh.co.uk: because they're either going out of business because the government isn't supporting them, or they're moving to places where governments will!
[17:03] Iain: like I said - the government's under no obligation at all
[17:03] beemoh.co.uk: and this will have a negative knock-on effect on the economy
[17:04] beemoh.co.uk: like I said- it's in their best interests to help
[17:04] Iain: it's the government's funeral...
[17:04] beemoh.co.uk: which is why somebody needs to knock some sense into them
[17:04] beemoh.co.uk: ce me.
[17:04] beemoh.co.uk: cue*
[17:05] Iain: go on then. you have five minutes with your local MP. crystallise your argument into two sentences.
[17:06] Iain: (and I will poke holes in it)
[17:07] beemoh.co.uk: will one long run-on sentence do?
[17:07] Iain: sure
[17:08] beemoh.co.uk: it is in the best interests of the UK government to aid the videogames development industry in the United Kingdom as not only will this create jobs, it will also benefit other British creative industries, resulting in an increase in tax revenue and will help to keep Britain on the world stage, culturally
[17:09] beemoh.co.uk: (the subtext, however, will be "I want a job and I can't get one. This is your fault.")
[17:10] Iain: heh - well, it's difficult to immediately refute the statement
[17:10] beemoh.co.uk: which one?
[17:10] Iain: "it is in the best interests of the UK government to aid the videogames development industry in the United Kingdom as not only will this create jobs"
[17:11] Iain: not so sure about " it will also benefit other British creative industries", though. how exactly?
[17:12] beemoh.co.uk: the Hollywood movie business model involves a tie-in game. This provides extra revenue and- hnngh- brand awareness. If we can develop the game in the UK as well, all the better.
[17:13] beemoh.co.uk: Likewise, it puts new IP into UK ownership, for selling to Hollywood or the UK film industry at a later date
[17:13] *** You have been disconnected. Fri Jun 22 17:13:26 2007.
[17:13] *** You are currently disconnected. Messages will not be received unless you are logged in.
[17:14] *** You are currently disconnected. Messages will not be received unless you are logged in.
[17:14] *** You are currently disconnected. Messages will not be received unless you are logged in.
[17:14] *** You are currently disconnected. Messages will not be received unless you are logged in.
[17:14] *** You are currently disconnected. Messages will not be received unless you are logged in.
Session Close (Iain): Fri Jun 22 17:21:10 2007

Session Start (illbeoffthen@hotmail.com:Iain): Fri Jun 22 17:22:12 2007
[17:22] beemoh.co.uk: stupid fucking pile of shit non-working wireless wank twat arse.
[17:22] Iain: heh
[17:22] beemoh.co.uk: I'll start my justification again
[17:22] beemoh.co.uk: the Hollywood movie business model involves a tie-in game. This provides extra revenue and- hnngh- brand awareness. If we can develop the game in the UK as well, all the better.
[17:23] beemoh.co.uk: Likewise, it puts new IP into UK ownership, for selling to Hollywood or the UK film/TV industry at a later date
[17:23] beemoh.co.uk: (i have genuinely thought about this, this isn't some reactionary "concerned from Pity Me, County Durham" local paper rant)
[17:24] beemoh.co.uk: you could also apply the notion of sharing tools and techonology
[17:27] beemoh.co.uk: has this ballsed up again?
[17:27] Iain: no
[17:27] Iain: just thinking
[17:27] beemoh.co.uk: ok
[17:27] beemoh.co.uk: you did get four messages of justification, yes?
[17:28] Iain: you used "IP" without irony. therefore your argument is null and void :D
[17:28] beemoh.co.uk: *slap*
[17:28] Iain: sorry, it's the weekend and I'm still at work.
[17:28] beemoh.co.uk: :)
[17:29] Iain: the IP argument only works if you're getting a game converted to film. making a tie-in involves no transfer of IP rights at all
[17:29] Iain: and do you really want more Uwe Boll films on your conscience?
[17:33] beemoh.co.uk: there may be no transfer of IP rights if my UK game studio makes the game of your UK film studio's new film, but I am still employing a team of developers in the UK to make it, paying UK taxes and what have you.
[17:33] beemoh.co.uk: likewise if my game studio makes the game of your US film studio's film
[17:34] beemoh.co.uk: and the UK/UK thing also has its use in marketing
[17:34] Iain: that doesn't help "other creative industries" though. unless you consider advertising to be a creative industry...
[17:34] beemoh.co.uk: my game promotes your film. your film promotes my game.
[17:34] beemoh.co.uk: perhaps "brand awareness" is a better term than "marketing"
[17:34] Iain: (I consider them to be mostly on crack, myself)
[17:35] beemoh.co.uk: :D
[17:35] Iain: oh lord, don't get me started on "brands". it's that kind of corporate language madness that had £400,000's worth of taxpayer's money spent on an abstract picture of Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob
[17:36] beemoh.co.uk: well, yes, but you see where I'm coming from
[17:36] beemoh.co.uk: Might I, for instance, point towards the success of Shaun Of The Dead stateside, which lead to an increase in US interest in Spaced?
[17:37] beemoh.co.uk: The common link being Simon Pegg and Nick Frost?
[17:37] Iain: aye, that's fair enough.
[17:38] beemoh.co.uk: Can we not perhaps extend that to a game property and a film property?
[17:38] beemoh.co.uk: (or a TV property, like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?)
[17:38] beemoh.co.uk: (or the 2000AD/Rebellion link?)
[17:38] Iain: or Crazy Frog Racer...
[17:39] beemoh.co.uk: :D
[17:39] Iain: the Big Brother game...
[17:39] beemoh.co.uk: persactly.
[17:39] beemoh.co.uk: Government aid will help us use that force for good, and not evil
[17:40] Iain: heh - good luck with that... for now, I have a pub to get to. ;)
[17:40] beemoh.co.uk: :D
[17:40] beemoh.co.uk: and to think, I stil haven't justified my Manhunt argument properly ;P
[17:40] Iain: heh
[17:41] beemoh.co.uk: I'll wait for yo to get back, and take advantage of your inebriated state
[17:41] beemoh.co.uk: then you'll have to conse.. erm, I mean, agree
[17:41] Iain: I'll undoubtedly be online later
[17:42] Iain: though be warned, after four pints of Stella Artois I'm much more argumentative ;)
[17:42] beemoh.co.uk: no you aren't
[17:42] Iain: ah, fuck off :D
[17:43] Iain: ;)
[17:43] beemoh.co.uk: :D
[17:43] beemoh.co.uk: tara
[17:43] Iain: catch you later
[17:43] *** "Iain" signed off at Fri Jun 22 17:43:37 2007.
Session Close (Iain): Fri Jun 22 17:44:42 2007

"clearly stealing"

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:12:23 GMT

That's it. Microsoft are clearly stealing my thoughts.

*applies tin-foil hat*

"you"

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:53:57 GMT

It was Svet's ninjas, I tell you!

No comment.

Mon, 28 May 2007 19:56:56 GMT

"posting up"

Sun, 27 May 2007 20:09:42 GMT

Some time ago, you may remeber me posting up my Mario Kart DS friend code.

I have recently invested in a copy of Picross DS- which you all should too, because it's great- and my friend code for that is as follows:

206259-263437

Happy addage!

"swearing for the sake of swearing"

Thu, 24 May 2007 22:43:23 GMT

...and that's Uni over and done with, or at least it was at noon. I am now officially unemployed, although I prefer the term "recovering student".

Afterwards, me and Andy went to go see Magicians, which was pretty decent- it's not amazing, it's certainly not as funny as Peep Show, or at least not in the same way, and there's quite a lot of swearing for the sake of swearing, but that's balanced out by plenty of gratuitous shots of Jessica Stevenson's glorious cleavage. Oh yes. And a fairly decent storyline, and a handful of good gags, obviously.

"PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE"

Mon, 21 May 2007 23:35:32 GMT

Coming onto LJ to make this post, I discovered that LiveJournal has just brought back the birthday reminder emails. Appropriately enough, they posted it up on my birthday.

Now, if only they'd done it a bit SOONER, somebody might have SAID SOMETHING. Now I've got to be PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE and not comment on other people's journals, as if I'm not TALKING to them. Thanks a FUCKING lot!

Anyway- that post I was originally going to make:

There's an Opera-tan! There's an Opera-tan!

"blubber"

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:58:07 GMT

Will I ever do a proper update? Who knows?

I'm not sure what bothers me more- the guy's enthusiasm or the fact that in the US, they put Cash Cab on the Discovery Channel...

"fur"

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:51:51 GMT

I just put my cup of tea down on the floor. When I picked it up, the base of the cup had developed a layer of fur. I think it's about time I vacuumed...

"razor"

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:23:12 GMT

There are two hundred and eighty eight fucking strips in that comic! The last thing you should ever do before I'm about to go to bed is give me a new webcomic to read, especially one with that many strips! You absolute bitch! I've got to get up in the morning!, etc.

Uh. Yes. Anyway. Not feeling so good, as demonstrated in MSN theatre:

[23:42] F!LL: oi oi
[23:43] beemoh.co.uk: evening
[23:43] F!LL: how goes your fine self
[23:43] beemoh.co.uk: not well :(
[00:46] F!LL: y u not well?
[00:50] beemoh.co.uk: manflu™
[00:50] F!LL: nice job with the tm
[00:50] beemoh.co.uk: TY
[00:50] F!LL: i appreciate it
[00:52] beemoh.co.uk: been ill since wednesday- felt like my head was going to explode
[00:58] beemoh.co.uk: flatmate has kindly donated some beechams, incidentally
[00:59] F!LL: hurray!
[00:59] beemoh.co.uk: although she's a pharmacy student, so I'm worried that it might be less "beechams" and more "coursework"
[00:59] F!LL: LOL
[00:59] F!LL: case study
[01:00] F!LL: her own concoction
[01:00] beemoh.co.uk: it *is* orange
[01:00] beemoh.co.uk: I, personally, can't think of anything in nature that comes in orange
[01:00] beemoh.co.uk: apart from, of course, the Orange.
[01:00] beemoh.co.uk: (clue's in the name, see)
[01:02] F!LL: still not ill enough to blunt your razor sharp wit i see
[01:02] beemoh.co.uk: god no

Now had it been 'wit' and not my actual train of thought, it would have been far funnier.

Other news: stuff! Woo.

"think"

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:02:59 GMT

You know, I think the fact that I get this explains an awful lot...

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:03:21 GMT

It's snowing! It's snowing! </child>

"shouldn't give"

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 03:46:27 GMT

Right. If there's one thing that they shouldn't give people who have been drinking, it's a bouncy castle.

If there's two, it's a bouncy castle and the music of Girls Aloud.

"the coast"

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:49:44 GMT

Hang on...

An abandoned island off the coast of Japan?

Where have I seen that before?

Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:05:19 GMT

Happy New Year, Internet.

Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:06:03 GMT

http://bm03.livejournal.com/67843.html

"behind"

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:05:21 GMT

Since everyone's putting their Wii numbers on their blogs, bastards I figured I'd show how behind the times I am, and show off my shiny new Mario Kart DS friend code. Enjoy:

309324-113380

I look forward to choking on your colletive dust.

"bottom's beginning to fall out"

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:10:52 GMT

Now I don't really have much against advertising- obviously I'd rather it wasn't there, and there are limits to what I will and will not put up with¹- but I'm willing to accept that if I want something and I'm not willing to put my hand in my pocket for it, then I must recieve it at some (for want of a better term) disadvantage.

In the dark days of dial-up, this was, say, Freeserve not offering the same range of content as AOL did, or later on, having to use an 0845 (10p/min) number rather than an 0800 (free) one, free online services usually have fewer features than their paid counterparts- like Flickr's 200-picture limit, or not being able to use your own layout on Livejournal. In Television, it has always been a short break in progamming every 15 minutes or so.

The bottom's beginning to fall out of the TV advertising market, due to a combination of the market getting saturated, recent limits on certain types of ads, and people doing other things like playing videogames or internetting. Understandably, the broadcasters have had to seek out alternate revenue streams which is why we see all those slappervision-type programmes at night, those dodgy quizzes, and how every single new show these days seem to be coupled with a premium rate phone/text competition or vote.

These are all unpleasant, but on the by and large, I can deal with them- SV can only be broadcast late at night when I'm probably not watching anyway, the quizzes are quite similar, or shoved into the arse end of the EPG, and votes/comps tend to be made into an integral part of the programme- notably the votes for who does the tasks in I'm A Celebrity, the music channels, or to a lesser extent, the games on The Big Breakfast, if you can cast your mind back that far.

(See also: DVD re-sales, merchandising, price gouging on-demand services)

If anything, they might be better than ads, since I don't have to support any of these if I don't want to- whereas if I buy a product which advertises, I am contributing to paying for the ads.

Paying a subscription for a channel is, considering, the most preferable option- I can support only the programmes (or channels) I want to, and there will probably be more choice of programming, since Super Niche Channel 57 would only need a couple of hundred subscribers to break even, rather than the millions upon millions of viewers needed to register at all on the inadequate TV ratings system⁴ and fight for the last remaining scraps of the advertising market.

Unfortunately, Sky have fucked up the pay-tv system (albeit in a misguided business model way, rather than a strictly evil, monopolistic one) in such a way that it's very difficult for minor channels to offer a subscription system, as once people have paid out for what they percieve as "Sky", they're not inclined to pay any extra⁶ for the other channels.

WARNING: Point imminent

The problem is, OFCOM have just done this, which allows networks to just come out and straight-up ask you for money to keep running- not a subscription fee, which- sensibly- they're allowed to advertise for anyway, nor payment for a vote or competition entry- just "give us your money or we'll stop doing programmes."

This is something they've had Stateside for some time, most notably used by faux-religious channels to screw money out of the weak-minded and by 'public' channels which wind up only showing dodgy 1970's BBC re-runs because that's all they can afford.

Not that a 1970's BBC re-run channel would strictly be a bad thing, arbitrarily speaking- it can't be any worse than some of the truly abortive attempts at TV channels clogging up the 'Entertainment' section, Hollywood TV- however, the way they ask for money is to essentially run telethons- a la Children In Need- and literally hold their programming to ransom.

Remember that episode of the Simpsons, where Homer becomes a missionary? And the climax of the show gets interrupted for that very reason? Yeah, like that.

It's bad enough that real charities keep trolling for donations- I go a fair distance out of my way to avoid the Charity Muggers who camp Debenhams (although my opinions on CMs are a matter for another post, god knows this one doesn't need another footnote) guilting me into donating rather than leaving me be and letting me pick what charities I want to support for myself- without it happening on TV as well. Even then, a minibus for the local Specials is one thing- at least that's a good cause. Lining the pockets of some wannabe Murdoch is another.

Anyway- rambling over. Discuss.

-----

1 - I'm not overly enamoured at the idea of paying for something and seeing loads of ads², for instance, nor am I too happy when the same advert gets run over and over³.

2- At present, you're allowed twelve minutes (or so) of ads per hour on average- a figure that Sky channels run right to the edge. Given what you're paying per channel on a Sky sub it would be unfair to expect them to be totally ad-free, but I would view six to nine minutes an hour as acceptable⁵. Obviously this would have to be on a sliding scale (You pay just over £16/year per full-fat BBC channel, while this would require tweaking, it would be a good comparison model) but is a nice happy medium.

3- a-ring-ding-a-dingding-ding ding neeyow...

4- 10,000 households to represent a population of 60 million? Fantastic!

5- There are dribblings of a break length backlash in the industry, notably UKTV made a big deal of its shorter adbreaks a few years ago, and recently a US news network (I think MSNBC) experimented with a single sponsor for its main bulletin/show. Sky News also saw success when it dropped ads altogether at the start of the Iraq war, and Sky Movies ran ads about how their movies were uninterrupted⁷ shortly after Film4 went ad-supported.

6- There are (or were) people who don't see why they have to pay for Sky since they've paid their TV licence, so it's a bit like that.

7- Sorry, just being awkward with this one

"two pounds thirty"

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:07:22 GMT

Gah! Up- and then-downgrading to and from IE7 has killed the internet on my laptop, and so this post is brought to you in fucking-freezing-near-the-window-desktop-machine-o-vision.

Still- just managed to win two pounds thirty out of Omar and a friend of his, neatly making up for the pound I lost early in the year, two-and-a-bit times over. £18.50-me-do.

EDIT: Fixed it! Hello, laptop! Hello, heat! Hello, non-americanized keyboard!

"transcend Wal-Mart"

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:13:51 GMT

The following is an opinion piece I wrote for GPol on the subject of a recent issue in Boston regarding advertising for the most recent Grand Theft Auto ~~rehash~~ PSP game on public transport.

It's a touch underdeveloped (and nonpublished) due to nobody really paying it any attention in the staff forum, but it needs posting into the world anyway. Tell me what you think.

IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF THE VILIFICATION OF THE M RATING?

Kudos, first, to Mr. Grabauskas for seeing past the controversy and daring to suggest that there might just be other evils in the world than videogames.

However, any real congratulation may be premature.

The wheels have been set in motion so that, once those for Vice City Stories have ended their run, no more adverts for games rated 'M' or 'AO' will see the light of the station again.

Banning AO adverts isn't really much of a gesture on the part of the Transit Authority- as we know, the number of AO games released is low- a mere 23 according to Wikipedia- and so can hardly represent a major stream of income for anybody selling advertising.

The reason there are so few AO titles- as we should all well know by now- are because they're not economically viable. They're not economically viable because, amongst other retailers, Wal-Mart- responsible for a massive percentage of game sales Stateside- won't stock them. If they won't stock your game, it's finished, according to publishers. You can see this in the fact that Atari felt the need to release a modified version of Fahrenheit for the American market in order to drop to an M rating, and that a certain minigame was crudely hacked out of GTA: San Andreas.

If you like, you could say that there's a bit of a stigma of sorts around the Adults Only rating.

Now, suddenly, there's a problem surrounding the M rating, for Bostonians, at least. M-rated games are now apparently unacceptable, and despite Grabauskas' assertion to the opposite in his letter, there is a victory, and there is a battle, fought part way down a very slippery slope.

This is the beginning of the M rating's vilification.

The viability of an M rated game has now taken a minor hit in that one of its advertising spots has now been placed out of reach- a hit which will increase in size if more transit systems follow Boston's lead, as Portland has already. However, this doesn't spell disaster just yet- plenty of M games get along without advertising.

Should Wal-Mart decide that the furore over Mature titles is a big enough issue, we can expect to see those games disappear from their shelves as well, as we nearly saw happen with the T-rated Bully, which makes a Mature game as big a risk as an AO title.

(That being said, the Grand Theft Auto brand might be big enough to transcend Wal-Mart's power and push people into the specialist store, which can only be a good thing)

This could be the beginning of a stealth version of the Comics Code, and could cripple this artform in the same the way it crippled its own- and it could be a much harder one to shift.

We can't afford to let this happen.

"stab"

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:05:28 GMT

Because it was a bit of a giggle on aqua_eyes' journal, and given what joranj seems to be getting up to at the moment, it'll probably be right up his street, too: The Stalker Meme™!

Answer the questions in the screened comments below.

(2 Points) My first name:
(1 Point) My last name:
(5 Points) Take a stab at my middle name:
(3 Points) Who was my first celeb-crush:
(2 Points) Where do I live:
(3 Points) What am I afraid of:
(2 Points) Do I smoke:
(3 Points) Do I drink:
(3 Points) How many siblings do I have:
(2 Points) Do I have children:
(2 Points) Do I get along with my parents:
(4 Points) What's one of my favorite things to do:
(2 Points) How many piercings do I have:
(3 Points) What's my favorite type of music:
(4 Points) What's my favorite TV show:
(3 Points) What's my favorite animal:
(2 Points) What's my favorite color:
(3 Points) Name something I hate:
(4 Points) Name a talent I have:
(4 Points) What kind of shoes do I wear:
(4 Points) Do I have any pets:
(2 Points) Who am I dating right now:
(5 Points) What am I studying in school:
(5 Points) What is the color of my room:
(4 Points) What are my political views:
(3 Points) What's my religion:
(5 Points on creativity) If I were stranded on a desert island, what would I bring:

EDIT: Answers now available in a friends-only for those who completed the quiz.

"pussy"

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:42:59 GMT

Decided to ~~pussy out and not complain~~ just inquire as to what happened rather than rock the boat.

As it happens, most of the noisemakers weren't invited as such, and brought their own fire extinguisher to empty all over the place. I am out of cereal, but it was only about a bowlful, so probably not worth getting worked up about, especially since nothing else went missing- I'd even left my bag in the front room and nothing got damaged/thrown about/extinguished, which is quite amazing.

Going to the RSAs or whoever next time, though.