8th August 2005, 6:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 8th August 2005, 6:35 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
If he understood programming, he might understand that, for example, they really pretty much had to go with making a model and then applying a filter to it. It's not like they actually expected someone to remove the filter in a mod. They didn't actually model all those details, that would be a LOT of extra modelling work that they would know right from the START was never going to be in the final product. Programmers don't DO that.
This guy doesn't do his research. It's not a "code", it's a mod. A mod that allows you to see a barbie doll. His argument? That not even that level of detail is allowed. Well, not really. I don't think he's saying barbie dolls should be banned because someone can take off the dolls' clothes. I think what he is attempting to say is that EA wouldn't have blurred it if EA thought it was acceptible, and that this action proves they think it's not. Not true. It's a shortcut really. It's EASIER to model barbie features, just the curves but nothing else, than to model the details. On the other hand, they actually wanted a life simulator. By using a blur, people can think all they want that there's something detailed under the blur. Not using it? They end up realizing the models aren't complete, breaking the illusion more than the blur would.
I think this guy really would sue a company because their game had the potential to not only have something unlocked, but something outright added by a creative modder.
However, there is one important thing about this letter that was left out. Allow me to play devil's advocate here because misrepresenting their argument is never justifiable. No straw men here, okay?
I get this text from VGcats actually (linked by a friend). If it is not legitimate, then that will come to light, but the text mostly corroborates with the above story. This was apparently sent to the cats crew. http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php
At any rate, that whole issue aside, I will use one particular quote for Jack here.
From there it goes on into the text quoted above. The point is, despite existing 17+ ratings, many states prohibit the sales of "sexual material harmful to minors" to anyone under 18 (which I suppose is very hard to really define, well I guess a scene of a rapist yelling at the camera that he's coming for the kids playing the game next would count...). So in other words, he has an actual good reason to force them to adopt a higher rating than M. However, he has to show that the game contains "sexual material harmful to minors". In this case, all he's done is read some reviews. Well, let's be fair. In the case of books or movies, all you really have to do is just passively read or watch the material. With a game, you have to actually do stuff. In this case, the man would have to get far enough into Killer 7 to actually see said material. It's possible he just isn't very good at video games (possible, slandering him with insults about his gaming skills is hardly relevant to the issue here). However, he can go far enough to, if he doesn't want to soil his own hands, have an adult play the game while he watches. So, is a scene of two clothed people having sex the sort of thing that should only be sold to 18 year olds? I suppose in the end that'll be decided in court. I could of course site that movies have that sort of material all the time available to those below 18, but in the end the guy may very well be one to say that he's going after the movie industry next for that very thing. In the end, maybe it will end up with an AO rating. However, I must say that it can hardly be neglegence in these particular cases.
Anyway, yeah the laws DO exist that prohibit certain things and that article removed his mention of that completely.
Still, in the end this guy has not done the proper research. Going on hearsay is NOT sufficient evidence.
Also, yeah the ESRB probably should be disbanded :D.
I leave you with this:
<img src="http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/images/comics/20050808.jpg">
This guy doesn't do his research. It's not a "code", it's a mod. A mod that allows you to see a barbie doll. His argument? That not even that level of detail is allowed. Well, not really. I don't think he's saying barbie dolls should be banned because someone can take off the dolls' clothes. I think what he is attempting to say is that EA wouldn't have blurred it if EA thought it was acceptible, and that this action proves they think it's not. Not true. It's a shortcut really. It's EASIER to model barbie features, just the curves but nothing else, than to model the details. On the other hand, they actually wanted a life simulator. By using a blur, people can think all they want that there's something detailed under the blur. Not using it? They end up realizing the models aren't complete, breaking the illusion more than the blur would.
I think this guy really would sue a company because their game had the potential to not only have something unlocked, but something outright added by a creative modder.
However, there is one important thing about this letter that was left out. Allow me to play devil's advocate here because misrepresenting their argument is never justifiable. No straw men here, okay?
I get this text from VGcats actually (linked by a friend). If it is not legitimate, then that will come to light, but the text mostly corroborates with the above story. This was apparently sent to the cats crew. http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php
At any rate, that whole issue aside, I will use one particular quote for Jack here.
Quote:As you may or may not know, more than forty states have “sexual material harmful to minors” statutes which prohibit the sale of sexually explicit material to anyone under 18 years of age. This hiatus between the “M” (age 17) rating and the statutory criminal standard (age 18) has always posed significant peril to the industry through games that contain sexual material, and it appears that those pigeons may come home to roost in Killer 7. “Hot Coffee” is a fairly recent example of the peril. As to Killer 7, please note:
From there it goes on into the text quoted above. The point is, despite existing 17+ ratings, many states prohibit the sales of "sexual material harmful to minors" to anyone under 18 (which I suppose is very hard to really define, well I guess a scene of a rapist yelling at the camera that he's coming for the kids playing the game next would count...). So in other words, he has an actual good reason to force them to adopt a higher rating than M. However, he has to show that the game contains "sexual material harmful to minors". In this case, all he's done is read some reviews. Well, let's be fair. In the case of books or movies, all you really have to do is just passively read or watch the material. With a game, you have to actually do stuff. In this case, the man would have to get far enough into Killer 7 to actually see said material. It's possible he just isn't very good at video games (possible, slandering him with insults about his gaming skills is hardly relevant to the issue here). However, he can go far enough to, if he doesn't want to soil his own hands, have an adult play the game while he watches. So, is a scene of two clothed people having sex the sort of thing that should only be sold to 18 year olds? I suppose in the end that'll be decided in court. I could of course site that movies have that sort of material all the time available to those below 18, but in the end the guy may very well be one to say that he's going after the movie industry next for that very thing. In the end, maybe it will end up with an AO rating. However, I must say that it can hardly be neglegence in these particular cases.
Anyway, yeah the laws DO exist that prohibit certain things and that article removed his mention of that completely.
Still, in the end this guy has not done the proper research. Going on hearsay is NOT sufficient evidence.
Also, yeah the ESRB probably should be disbanded :D.
I leave you with this:
<img src="http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/images/comics/20050808.jpg">
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)