Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] Fair Play To EA

Author
Message
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 04:54 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 05:32
@Matt Rock: They have to live up to it because...?


@Seppuku Arts:
Reviews are also supposed to based be based on factual experiences of videogames. The opinions about the game can only be based on them. If they aren't the review is just as malicious to a game as an incorrect statement of fact.

I understand that guests are under contract. Liability has to be passed down onto the owner of the business for things that guests say, but EA's problem was not with what the guest "reported" only what Fox news reported. Any retractment of the guests statements by themselves is not a sign that the news station was in wrong, which is what some people are trying to presuade me to think.

Your hypothetical situation would be a biased report, yes. But I think people feel as if the information is being reported subjectively because its along side of an opinion, instead of the report really being subjective.

ReWritten: "The football player took a kick to the man's shin and he cried out." --- "Painful looking situation."

If I had read, or heard that report I could clearly distinquish the factual written statement from the opinion of the reporter. I'll ignore the opinion and keep reading the actual news, which was reported accurately and unbiased. It doesn't bother me.

My problem is I really don't think the words "graphic", and "full nudity" went beyond their objective meaning as much as people think they did. In most people's mind the words "full nudity" would mean showing everything, which is subjective, therefore they assume the report was subjective. And the word "graphic" would range in ideas depending on who is thinking about graphic sex. I can guarantee a 10 year old boys idea of graphic sex is not even close to a prostitutes. Which also causes problems on the subjectivity of the report.
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 05:02 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 05:02
Because thats what they said they were....why else? I mean if someone was like "oh i am going to buy this lactose intolerant milk because I myself am lactose intolerant" and the person went home, drank it and almost died because it was not and the company was just like..."oh we were just saying that haha" and did not apologize. Well that'd be fox for you, then they called him a terrorist.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
xplosys
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 05:15
Quote: "@Matt Rock: They have to live up to it because...? "


LOL. You know how you used to hate it when adults said "because I said so."?

Now you know why they do it.

Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 05:31
Quote: "Because thats what they said they were....why else? I mean if someone was like "oh i am going to buy this lactose intolerant milk because I myself am lactose intolerant" and the person went home, drank it and almost died because it was not and the company was just like..."oh we were just saying that haha" and did not apologize. Well that'd be fox for you, then they called him a terrorist."


There is also a tangible consequence to their action. False advertisement is punishable by law. On the basis of ethics, their duties extend beyond morality and become civil duty.
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 05:41
Quote: "@Matt Rock: They have to live up to it because...?"

I'm trying to figure out if you really don't understand the conflict here, or if you're simply unwilling to admit when you're wrong . They have to live up to it because they belong to the field of journalism. It doesn't matter who owns the organization, or how the industry or the company specifically is regulated... it's a code of ethics, and they have to obide by that code at all times. You're obviously not getting the problem here, so let me put it into perspective...

When you make games, what's stopping you from making a program that erases someone's C drive? Sure, it could be done, very easily in fact, but would you actually do it? No, you wouldn't. Why? Because it's only ethical not to. It's a matter of ethics and morality to deliver the product you claim you're delivering. If you went out and bought a new game, but when you took it home and installed it you found out it was actually a screensaver, would you be pissed? I sure would be... because I paid for a product under false pretenses. This could very logically and rather easily be applied to the news media. If they tell their audience they're fair, honest, and objective, they have to obide by that, plain and simple. If they don't do that, well, they're selling us a series of opinion-based segments, sold under... you guessed it... false pretenses. And so help you god they should ever do a story on you and twist the truth... as Rami pointed out earlier, you'll be singing a completely different tune then, and a sad one to boot.

Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 05:53 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 05:57
In the field of journalism you have to abide by a code of ethics. You abide by the code of ethics because you're in the field of journalism.

Edit: I'm just going to answer this because I think its funny.

Quote: "When you make games, what's stopping you from making a program that erases someone's C drive? Sure, it could be done, very easily in fact, but would you actually do it? No, you wouldn't. Why? Because it's only ethical not to."


People make programs that erase someone's C drive because it is unethical to do.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 07:33 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 07:34
Quote: "And again, I still don't think Mass Effect was lied about."


Let's go over the segment:

Reporter: "... new role-playing videogame that is leaving nothing to the imagination." - False

"Full digital nudity." - I can take or leave this, as there's a side-boob shot. My 97-year old great grandmother would call this nudity. Most people living in today's times wouldn't. Krilik, this reporter obviously thought the graphic content in Mass Effect was *much more* that a boob shot. You *have* to admit that. Her whole opening monologue was very iffy.

Cooper: "It's a man in this game deciding how many women he wants to be with." - False, as you can play the game as a woman. Last time I checked the game doesn't allow you to "be with as many women as you can".

The reporter said it's interesting on the website that you click on it and it asks you your age, and she got in. She's laughing at how easy it is for anyone to get it. Um, that's the Internet's fault, not the game developers. This is the same with adult websites

Cooper: "There's a new study out of the University of Maryland right now that says that boys who play video games can not tell the difference between what they're seeing in the video game and the real world." Excuuuuuse me? She generalized and glossed over half the population. Most of us here were young kids at one time and we could tell the difference between Mario and a real human.

Also, as an aside I did a search for this "study" and so did the guys from PC Gamer mag. None of us could turn up anything. Hmmm.

Roundtable panel journalist refers to Mass Effect as "Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas". For those not in the know, DDD is a hardcore pornographic movie. FALSE.

Roundtable panel woman journalist talks about how kids in today's times will simply play their "dad's video games" regardless of the house rules. In my opinion this isn't the case any more than your kids finding your porn stash (if you have one) or your Rated R movies and watching them. Come on, this is nothing new. Can't blame the video game for that one.

Other roundtable panel woman asks why the game didn't get an AO rating, the highest rating you can give a videogame. Last time I checked Mass Effect was rated Mature for 17+. AO ratings (at least here in Canada) is 17+, so she doesn't know what she's talking about there either.

Second roundtable panel guy says something I agree with, that the government can't censor the Internet and video games, and that it's up to parents to determine what their kids can do.


Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 08:00 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 08:00
Cooper (the author) has retracted her statements:

Quote: "I recognize that I misspoke. I really regret saying that, and now that I’ve seen the game and seen the sex scenes it’s kind of a joke.

Before the show I had asked somebody about what they had heard, and they had said it’s like pornography. But it’s not like pornography. I’ve seen episodes of Lost that are more sexually explicit."


Source


Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 09:14 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 09:14


David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 09:35 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 09:38
Quote: "Seriously, I *don't care* how newscasters or their editors feel about *anything*. Their job is to tell me what happened in the world, not tell me how I should feel about a subject. News media has been dead for twenty years"


Spot on. On the perfect news channel, the presenters should be totally impartial and unattached to what they're discussing. The only news channel I could think of that neared that goal was BBC news, but they've taken a slide too recently, especially in regards to technology


09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 13:13 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 13:16
Good points there Jeku.

Quote: "Your hypothetical situation would be a biased report, yes. But I think people feel as if the information is being reported subjectively because its along side of an opinion, instead of the report really being subjective.

ReWritten: "The football player took a kick to the man's shin and he cried out." --- "Painful looking situation."

If I had read, or heard that report I could clearly distinquish the factual written statement from the opinion of the reporter. I'll ignore the opinion and keep reading the actual news, which was reported accurately and unbiased. It doesn't bother me."


If you looked at my hypothetical situation with a clear understanding/open mind, then yes you probably could separate the truth from the opinion - but not everybody is like that, for one thing they trust whatever their news reporter says and how their news is given to them. Most readers (or watchers/listeners) aren't going to find that and say 'hang on' the guy was just kicked in the shins and the malice was a perception of the reporter, they're just going to trust the reporter and think terribly of the footballer.

And unfortunately this is where the ethics in news media does seems to fail. Seeing people actually buying the garbage Fox, The Sun and The Mirror dish out - I remember actually pointing out an article in The Mirror to someone and telling them what makes the article control their opinion (after all the person had a reaction to the article, thinking 'oh no! That's bad.' The 3 I listed are run by the same man and are very similar in respects.

I know what you're trying to say, you can't really see the problem because you look at it and know where the truth lies and that's a good thing IMO. But the vast population doesn't and it's them who articles effect.

Quote: "My problem is I really don't think the words "graphic", and "full nudity" went beyond their objective meaning as much as people think they did."


The problem with words like 'graphic' and 'full nudity' is that they can carry different connotations. To a mature audience it's common for people to think 'graphic sex' is with the sexual organs showing and all. 'Full nudity' include the ability to see a boob in that point of view. (Rather than its literal meaning of clothless)

As it is a mature audience that mostly watches Fox News, therefore such as interpretation will be taken, and because Fox is making an article focusing on those parts it seems more so like a complaint or a disapproval. People are going to come to the conclusion that the sex in this game is a 'bad thing'. The part of the news isn't a direct lie, but distorts the truth...well if you look at what 'graphic' implies then you could say what they said is false and are indirectly not telling the truth, or lying.

But from that fragmented version of the letter on the main link, then there is one lie that isn't ambiguously a lie and that's the one saying that this is all aimed at our minors. Think of the effect of having a piece of news complaining about 'graphic' sex and 'full on nudity' and ideas of pornography in your head then that last line will just strike you and will leave you thinking 'These game developers are aiming porn at our kids'.

Now you may want to say that it in technical terms isn't lying, I'm sure we could debate. But this is how news media manages to get away with misrepresentation of information, because they can fall back on something saying 'well technically we weren't lying' though the effect of what they said had on people's minds suggests something to them far from the truth.

This is one of the key problems in the English language I think, it's too damn ambiguous, and writers can easily use ambiguity to their best advantage. It was interesting to learn about the vast effect of ambiguity in one of our lectures, and it can work to a great effect in literature, but when it's used in News...the effects can be something to be less enthusiastic about.

So I think, no matter what you think of EA or their reasons for calling Fox out with a letter of complaint, I think it's good that they did, for one thing it helps address one of the many problems in our news media today. If the EA loving gamers catch the drift from this letter, then perhaps less people will blindly trust their news media.

It takes blood and guts to be this cool, but I'm still just a cliche
RalphY
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2004
Location: 404 (UK)
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 16:32
Quote: "They have to live up to it because...?"

Quote: "There is also a tangible consequence to their action."


Kinda answered your own question there Krilik.

Oh boy! Sleep! That's when I'm a Viking! | Super Nintendo Chalmers!
Luciferia
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2007
Location: England
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 20:55
Idea for EA, Jeku: House of the dead style rail shooter with Fox Network employees instead of fat, cut-up zombies. Call it "House of the [things that I am not allowed to mention under the AUP]. I'd buy it.
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 23:54
Quote: "EA's product got bashed in front of hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers that'll now not allow their children to play a gem like Mass Effect"

Children should not be playing the game. Its rated to indicate this.


Chart data provided with kind permission from ELSPA
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 00:06 Edited at: 28th Jan 2008 00:10
Quote: "Reporter: "... new role-playing videogame that is leaving nothing to the imagination." - False"


Maybe, if you want to get into the specifics of what the characters did while they were having sex. I think the context of the statement was that they didn't hide the fact the characters are engaging in sex.

Quote: ""Full digital nudity." - I can take or leave this, as there's a side-boob shot. My 97-year old great grandmother would call this nudity. Most people living in today's times wouldn't. Krilik, this reporter obviously thought the graphic content in Mass Effect was *much more* that a boob shot. You *have* to admit that. Her whole opening monologue was very iffy."


There is more than a side-boob shot. It shows the female's nude butt.

How does Cooper represent the voice of Fox, but their other guest Geoff does not? I don't understand how you can accuse Fox of lying on behalf of one of their guests but not telling the truth on behalf of the other. Besides, EA didn't respond to Cooper's statements, or the panel discussion (as far as the public is aware at least). The accusation of incorrect statement came from the 3 points EA made in their letter, those are what they want corrected, and those are what they are stating are false.

Quote: "Also, as an aside I did a search for this "study" and so did the guys from PC Gamer mag. None of us could turn up anything. Hmmm."


Yes, she is stupid. I think she was talking about the research from the University of Maryland that stated males who played video games were less critical of real life negative stereotypes presented in the games.

Quote: "Other roundtable panel woman asks why the game didn't get an AO rating, the highest rating you can give a videogame. Last time I checked Mass Effect was rated Mature for 17+. AO ratings (at least here in Canada) is 17+, so she doesn't know what she's talking about there either. "


AO ratings in the US are 18+. Which is parallel to the movie industry where R is 17+ but pornography (which an AO rating would be considered) is 18+.

The panel discussion was all opinion, not a news report. I'm tired of people putting up a strawman arugment saying "People can't tell the difference." Yet, I watch Fox news, and am completely aware of this fact. Its actually one of the reasons I like watching Fox news, as its more interesting to hear people's opinions than it is watching a robot read news to me.

Quote: "If you looked at my hypothetical situation with a clear understanding/open mind, then yes you probably could separate the truth from the opinion - but not everybody is like that, for one thing they trust whatever their news reporter says and how their news is given to them. Most readers (or watchers/listeners) aren't going to find that and say 'hang on' the guy was just kicked in the shins and the malice was a perception of the reporter, they're just going to trust the reporter and think terribly of the footballer."


Right, but your hypothetical situtation is a subjective report even if people can distinguish the opinion from fact. My hypothetical situation differs from yours in that the report is seperated from the opinion, making the report objective and independant of the opinion. That's how I see it anyway.

Quote: "The problem with words like 'graphic' and 'full nudity' is that they can carry different connotations. To a mature audience it's common for people to think 'graphic sex' is with the sexual organs showing and all. 'Full nudity' include the ability to see a boob in that point of view. (Rather than its literal meaning of clothless)"


Yes I agree. But I also think Fox isn't to blame for people's misundertanding based on connotations. News reports are supposed to be written around the denotations of words so the ambiguity of the report is clear. I honestly don't see why people assume, or think that we should assume, anything other than what was literally said, especially when its supposed to be completely serious... And on a lighter note, this is which I will never understand women.

Quote: "But from that fragmented version of the letter on the main link, then there is one lie that isn't ambiguously a lie and that's the one saying that this is all aimed at our minors. Think of the effect of having a piece of news complaining about 'graphic' sex and 'full on nudity' and ideas of pornography in your head then that last line will just strike you and will leave you thinking 'These game developers are aiming porn at our kids'. "


I agree that the statement wasn't ambiguos, but I also think a lot of people are reading it wrong. It wasn't a "Fox says this..." statement, it was a "Fox says they say this..."

Quote: "So I think, no matter what you think of EA or their reasons for calling Fox out with a letter of complaint, I think it's good that they did, for one thing it helps address one of the many problems in our news media today. If the EA loving gamers catch the drift from this letter, then perhaps less people will blindly trust their news media."


There are also a lot of negative things that come along with it. One mainly being that games are going to get a lot of negative press from certain news organization if its going to get them viewers. Which means that they're going to start picking on other games, and other people, which is going to make people like Jack Thompson turn their attention to them. Causing game developers to be forced into lawsuits. Big names like EA aren't really threatened by it, but independant developers that try to make games like will have a hard time dealing with it and may be forced to stop making good games.

To me, I just think its easier for people to say "Who cares?" Ignore it, and not give them attention, which is what keeps them doing what they're doing.
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 00:56
This is kind of like the time when people blew the "Hot Coffee" mod WAY out of proportion. Saying anyone could get their hands on it, when you had to first find and download it, Mod your PS2 and then burn it to a disk.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 00:58
Quote: "Mod your PS2 and then burn it to a disk"


I think you could turn it on using a gameshark


Want free hosting? Click the sig, go to hosting link on right nav. Password is "tgc".
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 01:00
My friends tried that. Lol didn't work at all, and it corrupted his save haha

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 01:04
Haha, ye, I believe they re-released it without the ability to activate it.


Want free hosting? Click the sig, go to hosting link on right nav. Password is "tgc".
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 01:09
Yeah, they did, but they are still selling the "AO" rated one behind the counter.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 01:50 Edited at: 28th Jan 2008 01:55
Quote: "Children should not be playing the game. Its rated to indicate this."

In the Netherlands, children goes to 18 or 21, you're adult with 21. Children is quite a wide definition here. Seeing I'm from a little bit of a strict family, if my dad said "NO" it would be no Mass Effect for me.

This is totally useless. I wonder why it always appears to be Krilik/Zappo against the rest of TGC. They must live in a seperate or alternate world.

Quote: "My problem is I really don't think the words "graphic", and "full nudity" went beyond their objective meaning as much as people think they did. In most people's mind the words "full nudity" would mean showing everything, which is subjective, therefore they assume the report was subjective. And the word "graphic" would range in ideas depending on who is thinking about graphic sex. I can guarantee a 10 year old boys idea of graphic sex is not even close to a prostitutes. Which also causes problems on the subjectivity of the report."

Showing everything is subjective? Uhm... Both words seem to have a pretty defined meaning to me.

And a 10 year old nowadays almost has the same idea of graphic sex (and I don't mean artistic nudity). You should try visiting a school. Heck, on average, 4 years later they've lost their virginity here in the Netherlands. It's sickening.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 02:12
I'm just gonna take this quote for now, it's 1am and I have a lecture in 8 hours, so I'll be off to bed in a minute.

Quote: "Yes I agree. But I also think Fox isn't to blame for people's misundertanding based on connotations. News reports are supposed to be written around the denotations of words so the ambiguity of the report is clear. I honestly don't see why people assume, or think that we should assume, anything other than what was literally said, especially when its supposed to be completely serious..."


Yes they are, Fox are supposed to be professionals - their writers are supposed to professionals and I am a writer learning to be a professional and I know it's the writer's responsibility to know what their language does and how the English language works and to be able to use it to the best effect. Legal writers write 100% objective to cover their butt from the ambiguities within the English vocabulary - because ambiguities mean misinterpretations and for them it means a loophole.

'graphic sex scenes' (or whatever the quote was, haven't the time to look it up) is ambiguous, if it was put in it's literal sense it would be closer to that of legal talk. 'Graphic' is an ambiguous words, it's meaning isn't a clear cut one, for one thing 'graphic' in the dictionary has several definitions (if fox were trying to be clear, then they would have used a word with a clear definition):

Here are two that would fit into the context in terms of writing:

Quote: "giving a clear and effective picture; vivid: a graphic account of an earthquake."

and
Quote: "a computer-generated image."




Put it into the context, its damn obvious that the scenes in a computer game are computer generated, thus the definition of being clear and effective is the more accurate one, a clear and effective sex scene would be seeing the sexual organs.

And this is the ambiguity people go for.

As Fox are professionals and as are their writers, then they would have avoided the word 'graphic' due to what in its context that it would imply. Writers are supposed to be the masters of language use, if they make the mistake of misrepresenting information with ambiguities then they're poorly skilled writers.

Exit Pursued by man-bear-pig
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 04:20 Edited at: 28th Jan 2008 04:30
Quote: "Yes they are, Fox are supposed to be professionals - their writers are supposed to professionals and I am a writer learning to be a professional and I know it's the writer's responsibility to know what their language does and how the English language works and to be able to use it to the best effect. Legal writers write 100% objective to cover their butt from the ambiguities within the English vocabulary - because ambiguities mean misinterpretations and for them it means a loophole."


Someone unbeknownst to a clear definition of a word would not win a lawsuit based on their knowledge of its connotation. The only way a loophole can be found is if the person knew the literal meanings of the word, which are not connotations. And when a word may be considered ambiguious, legal writers define it within its context.

Maybe I should have said, you can't blame Fox for "lying" based on ambiguities. You can blame them for the ambiguities though.

Quote: "Put it into the context, its damn obvious that the scenes in a computer game are computer generated, thus the definition of being clear and effective is the more accurate one, a clear and effective sex scene would be seeing the sexual organs."


The word also means "presented in a realistic manner", which in context would also be an accurate definition. And I'm sure the developers of Mass Effect would agree, was the attempt; to accurately model real life relationships.

I still don't see how you can say they were flatout lying. Because even if you say seeing sexual organs is the definiton of graphic sex, I can disagree. And I actually would because recently seeing the movie "Good Luck Chuck" I literally described the movie to my mother as having "graphic sex", yet no sexual organs were ever shown. But it was still very vivid, and very realistic, to the point of me labeling it as pornography.
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 05:07
Never mind this, Krilik is not giving up and personally, I can't see how anyone can enjoy a discussion like this. He has this strange, strange look on the world and I just can't get my reasoning to even understand what he's saying. I think I'll refrain from posting here.

FOX was wrong to air it without checking it, Ms. Cooper was wrong to lie about the game and pretend knowing what she was talking about, EA was good to write that letter and even better to write it without all the legal threats and the community is great at showing it won't take such bullcrap.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 06:43
Agreed The_Rami.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 16:06
Quote: "Maybe I should have said, you can't blame Fox for "lying" based on ambiguities. You can blame them for the ambiguities though."


In certain parts the were not lying, but the use of ambiguities has the same/similar effect. Remember I've only read quotes and the letter, I didn't watch the broadcast, so I can't pick out which parts are lies and which are the use of ambiguities.

Following what Rupert Murdoch media stations do (Mostly Fox, The Sun and The Mirror) and my experience from reading/watching/analysing them, I think I would be safe to say that these 'mere' ambiguities were not slip ups upon the writers, but were purposefully done, as every writer should know that what you write and do has a purpose and an effect. Fox writers would know this, use their language to their best advantage, even to work around the 'lie' barrier, they distort the truth with language. In my mind that's just as bad, if not worse. Distorting the truth could be purposefully missing out information, or using ambiguities to present your information - so you can suggest one thing and say you mean something else. Distorting the truth makes it difficult to call somebody out on a lie.

But, I think you could still say Fox lied...it seemed to me the only logical definition that fits the sentence is a clear and effective picture. I doubt it'd be much to argue against that a clear and effective sex scene, would visually be hardcore pornography - it simulates the effect of sexual activity and see the primary sex organs would make the scene clear, side and bum shots isn't clear nor as effective.

Though 'graphic' is an ambiguous word, the only fitting definition when applied makes the statement untrue. Well other than the definition of a computer-generated image, it's fairly clear that Fox isn't saying the sex scenes are computer generated...especially as the syntax and grammar they used to describe it. EA calling them out on that, I think is good, I mean even if there weren't any lies, it draws attention to how Fox are unreliable in delivering 'News' because they neither show a clear picture or the whole picture. Fox gave them unfair and unjust publicity and well, it's only natural for EA to complain - I mean EA could get legal on them, but Fox could make that money back quickly and probably the lawsuit would go unnoticed.

Exit Pursued by man-bear-pig
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 17:30 Edited at: 28th Jan 2008 17:34
Of course it was purposefully done. That's how they get ratings. You don't purposefully write a boring story, you purposefully write something that's going to get noticed. Its probably why those chose to call it "graphic sex" as opposed to just "sex". But if you want to get technical about it the game actually does not contain any sex whatsoever. There is an implied sexual engagement. And if you really want to get technical the sex is only simulated. But the implied sexual engagment is graphic enough for people to assume that the characters are engaging in sex. There is nothing hidden about it.

My problem, and which is why I mostly don't care if EA is upset, is it coming from Fox news and people jumping on the opposite bandwagon by default. I already know people don't like Fox, and I already know people are assuming, like you said based on experience, that Fox is distorting the truth. Basing your argument against them because you think the source is corrupt is a logical fallacy. Its like Raven coming in here saying my whole arugment is debunked because I like Sony... Whatever.

I still think the letter was foolish in light of Geoff Keighly's comments aired on the show.

Edit: I would also like to point out that they showed a still image of the most graphic part of the sex sequence on air (censored).
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 17:33
Quote: "I wonder why it always appears to be Krilik/Zappo against the rest of TGC."

Eh? Why attack me - who have I posted 'against'? I think you should read my posts again. Unless of course my views are some how less valid than yours? Creating arguments for the sake of arguments is not a good thing, and you have to understand that you will come across people in your life who do not share the same views as you. My advice... be tolerant and not insulting.

With regards to terms such as "full nudity", things aren't always black and white (like they are on planet 'tha_rami' ). For example, if there was a picture of a naked woman but various areas were pixelated deliberately (like you see on TV police shows to hide peoples identity) most people would say she was nude. The fact that you can't see anything explicit doesn't matter as you know (or presume from what you can see) she has no clothes on.

In this case I think giving the game a rating which says it contains an adult theme and is unsuitable for children is enough. After that its down to the parents to decide what is suitable for their children and monitor what they play.


Chart data provided with kind permission from ELSPA
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 18:27
Quote: " Of course it was purposefully done. That's how they get ratings. You don't purposefully write a boring story, you purposefully write something that's going to get noticed. Its probably why those chose to call it "graphic sex" as opposed to just "sex"."


News is not entertainment, there's something wrong when representation is sacrificed for entertainment, when you sacrifice too much, it basically becomes something that deviates too far from what news is. As far as ratings go, it would boost ratings if you told a story of how George Bush raped somebody, of course we're talking about bending the truth, lets say Bush was accused of sexual abuse and then the headline was 'George Bush Sex scandal begins'...well, the headline is catchy and is sort of entertaining, but really is it a fair one?

Fox media isn't the only media that does this sort of thing, a lot of them do and I think it's appalling, that they think it's okay to misrepresent, distort the truth and even deliver information in an opinionated view - then call it news and boost their profits, ratings etc. for a selfish gain. Because once they do that, people will involuntarily side with them and follow a perception that is inaccurate to the situation and even cause ignorance - it's interesting to see people that read newspapers that have articles containing negativity of immigrants and even take an anti-immigrant point of view are racist, I'd quote a person, but unfortunately some language is completely inappropriate here.

News is not meant to be entertainment, it's not meant to be politically based, it's meant to be informative and 'entertaining' news. News that catches your eye should be interesting - if news looks daunting, then restructure it or shorten it...not 'spice it up'. Of course it's not just entertainment, general media like to cause a fuss over certain political issues. A newspaper/channel that doesn't favour the war, will tell heart broken soldier stories, on that does will tell heroic battles - this although a form of entertainment and politics, isn't a fair representation of war (for one thing, the person reading the news that dislikes war will think 'war is a terrible thing' - I'd agree with them, but that's aside the point), one telling of the events occurring and the losses made, is. If you want to hear of heartbreaking stories of war, there are plenty of books, true stories, poems and other entertainment resources around to fulfill that.

Exit Pursued by man-bear-pig
FredP
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 18:58
I cannot believe we are still discussing this.Fox news was wrong to do waht they did.Only one person so far is refusing to admit that.There used to be ethics in jounalism.Fox news shouldn't report the news responsibly because they have to.They sould do it because it's the right thing to do.
If I wanted a biased opinion on my news I'd report it myself.
It's not called Fox Opinions or MSNBC Opinions or Headline Opinions...no,they call themselves the news.
There's no law that says Fox or anybody else has to use journalistic intergrity but it's about damned time somebody showed some.

Please have mercy and use the search function.
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 19:01
Quote: "In this case I think giving the game a rating which says it contains an adult theme and is unsuitable for children is enough. After that its down to the parents to decide what is suitable for their children and monitor what they play."


The broadcast as a whole, this was basically the major point they seemed to be trying to make.

That the game is completely available to children and contains scenes that they should not be viewing, which if it does or doesn't I've posted both YouTube links to the broadcast and the worst scene in the game for such things. Quite frankly I feel they're over-rating about the scenes being of an overly graphic nature, but even still the game is rated M (17+) with a very clear indication that it contains Violence and Scenes of a Sexually Explicit nature.

EA in this respect covered their asses. The only time that the scenes were mentioned by Bioware themselves (and it was only one staff member) was in a passing comment during a Sci-Fi special called "SCI vs FI: Mass Effect" which is currently available to download and watch via Xbox Live Marketplace.

Now the other half of the discussion was that parents don't have control over what their children do on the consoles. With one saying that "Dads play these games, and while both are out a kid could just pop it in and play without their knowledge"

If we put aside the fact that it takes quite a while to get to that point in the game. The parents should not be leaving their children unattended for periods of time if they are under 16. I'm sorry but it's the law both here in the UK and US that minors are not allowed to be without parental or guardian supervision for more than an hour (if the child is under 13 you are NEVER to allowed to leave them unattended) .. that is the law under "child neglegence"

So we're left with children between 13-16 who can't legally play this game that could potencially do so for say an hour each day.

Well anyways... when you stack up against this that the title is available for the Xbox 360 ONLY at present, a console that provides passcodes for using account; as well as full resources such as timers for when the console may be used without an admin account as well as a specific account restricter that disables games with higher ratings than the account is given from being played.

Quite frankly parents have only themselves to blame if their kids are playing this game without their knowledge.

Staff at EB Games will REFUSE sale, YES even in the US without providing a form of identification; although some may not bother.
Here in the UK it is ILLEGAL to sell games to people who cannot provide such ID. What's more is if you look under 25 the retailers are required to ask you for ID.

So, in the end the only people capable of getting this game are those who can play it really. Unless the parents buy it without bothering, then the blame falls squarely at their feet.

That is the end of this. Not that the game is unreasonable but that parents are just frankly too self absorbed to take enough of an interest.

RTFM, Read the back of packages, Put the Parental Controls on your childs console accounts.

As a parent you have all the tools at your disposal to make the games they play safer than anything else they will experiencing including Movies, Television and Music.

Next time you're speeding and get pulled over, use the excuse "but I didn't know" see if they buy it as quickly as the parental public does with consoles. At the end of the day this is purely a parental issue IF parents wish to complain.

The rating here in the UK is only 12, not even 12A (the latter meaning and Adult must purchase and agree it's alright for their child. Replaces PG for the most part)

Given we have the strictest system next to Germany worldwide for setting ratings, the fact that the US has higher... then Fox make this sort of stink about it. Quite frankly beyond shocking!

As for those of you and honestly Krilik I firmly don't believe you've bothered to view any of the related media on this subject either given the comments you've made since claiming to have done so. If you don't have a full understanding on the subject then STFU

Only comment on stuff that you have experience and knowledge about, which a good portion I've seen responding quite frankly don't.

Fact here is Fox is trying to blame developers, console manufacturers and anyone else they can for parental failures. Something the general public laps up simply because they don't want to believe they could possibly be in the wrong.

Often I ignore this stuff, simply because the games they pick on are just the gaming equivilant of low-brow crap.

This time however, they have taken what quite frankly is one of the most high-quality products ever to grace the computer game industry. A title that will have an impact on how stories for games are going to be approached in the future... and now it's marred by this bull****

I don't care how you want to spin it to make Fox not look so bad for what they've done. The damage is now done. This industry needs to see more games like Mass Effect showing Action can be blended with a deep and insightful story that goes beyond "Dude, Kill everything that moves!"

That's what is truely pissing me off about all of this, as it WILL have an impact on what publishers and the ratings board will be willing to allow. We'll be one step closer to more generic storyless crap than ever before.

Relationships are a very important part of life, and story-telling.
In both it can often lead to sex which is another huge part of most peoples lives.

Instead let's pop a bullet in someones brain and ignore that sex ever happens cause it's taboo still aparently.
All I can say is grow the hell up!

This is the 22nd Century, not the sodding dark ages.
Mass Effect is the first game to really show that your actions have consiquences in a way that can either make or break how others see you.

That is what eventually leads to the sex scene in the first damn place, unless you treat the people you choose to be with correctly... you won't get it.

Playboy, Penthouse and Baywatch objectifies women. As do most TV Soaps.

Mass Effect however shows a number of different types of women, with different personalities the ones who remain around you the whole game are very strong carrear minded; who will not jump in bed with you at the drop of a hat.

IMO it actually shows if anything the correct way to treat, and be around women if you want to get anywhere. If you acted like you do in the game with most lasses you wouldn't get very far, but it doesn't sodding objectify them in any fashion.

Oh and add to this, the gay scenes; aren't just between women. Although not something I watched, because I'm a bit squeemish about that sort of thing; one of my mates got the two lead males to hook up.

Was nice of Fox to make a mention of how that might make children all confused about their sexual orientation; although you notice they also never said that about girls either. I have a feeling they believe all gamers are 10-16yo males.

When in reality it's 18-30 mixed (in-fact for the most part it's 50-50 now)

Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 19:37
@Seppuku Arts: Yes, you are correct, news is not supposed to be entertainment. But it is treated like entertainment. Now if it were treated like news and Fox went around reporting deliberate false statements for the sake of propogando it would be a completely different story. But they aren't. They are trying to get ratings by reporting sensitive material.

And I can seperate deliberately making false statements to shine something in a specific light, to making false statements based on their ignorance. From watching the segment, it is clear that everyone against sex in video games was ignorant about Mass Effect.

@FredP: I don't care what Fox did. I still think EAs letter was foolish, childish, and unprofessional after watching the segment.

@Raven: I should watch the media on the subject? Maybe you completely ignored my post, but I specifically described the content they showed on Fox's segment, and also which content they removed from Mass Effect's cutscene.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 19:43
Quote: "Yes, you are correct, news is not supposed to be entertainment. But it is treated like entertainment. Now if it were treated like news and Fox went around reporting deliberate false statements for the sake of propogando it would be a completely different story. But they aren't. They are trying to get ratings by reporting sensitive material."


So fox news is treated like entertainment, not news. Therefore, we should consider this news broadcast entertainment and fictional?

You make no sense.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because the limit is 600x120.
FredP
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:00
Quote: "@FredP: I don't care what Fox did. I still think EAs letter was foolish, childish, and unprofessional after watching the segment."


What Fox did was unprofessional.EA could have used legal recourse or raised hell about it but they handled the stuation as professionals.
You're wrong.You know it.Look around you.I don't know if you work for Fox,hate EA or you are just incapable of grasping what everyone else has...Fox did a piss poor job on this (which is nothing new but I digress).
Now you can pick hairs and all you want but Fox screwed up.EA did not.Those are the facts.You apparantly are the only one who does not understand this.Why is beyond me.
The fact is that if someone doesn't know what the hell they are talking about then they shouldn't promote their garbage as news.

Please have mercy and use the search function.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:03
Huzzah for Raven, I read all of that, 'tis one of few of his long posts that I've read and I agree with the little guy.


And Mass Effect sounds fantastic, and it's great to see there's a proper story to it.

Exit Pursued by man-bear-pig
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:03
I don't care what Fox did. I still think EAs letter was foolish, childish, and unprofessional after watching the segment.


Quote: "So fox news is treated like entertainment, not news. Therefore, we should consider this news broadcast entertainment and fictional?"


How is entertainment fictional? I watch people play basketball, its entertainment, it is very real.
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:06
Quote: "I don't care what Fox did. I still think EAs letter was foolish, childish, and unprofessional after watching the segment."


Defending your company against childish lies by people who dont know a damn thing about what they were talking about is childish? Dude...where did you grow up?

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:12
Apparently he has better literary skills and is judging the author of the letter on his writing skills.

A letter doesn't have to be written by a lawyer or by Cooper Lawrence to be considered decent. The letter was fine, and it was right, it was not childish.

What exactly was childish about it?

Your signature has been erased by a mod because the limit is 600x120.
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:14
Why do people who don't bother reading the thread make comments?

A. I don't think they were "childish lies"
B. The content of the letter has an almost word-for-word transcription of a guest on the show
C. Other content of the letter was meant to single out and point fingers at Fox news in order to make them look bad.

Taking in consideration of points A and B, I consider part of EAs letter quite foolish. Asking them to correct it is one thing, asking them to correct it by reiterating what was said on-air makes me question the reasoning behind the letter in the first place.

Taking in consideration point C, it was both childish and unprofessional for EA to even mention other programs aired on Fox in order to make them look like hypocrites. Whether or not they are. Its playground bullying meant to make Fox looks stupid. I don't see how that is not unprofessional or childish.
FredP
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:27 Edited at: 28th Jan 2008 20:28
Quote: "C. Other content of the letter was meant to single out and point fingers at Fox news in order to make them look bad."


Like the fact that Fox news botched the whole damn thing didn't make them look bad enough.
1. Fox screwed up
2. EA responded (and were a lot nicer than I would be).
What part of "Fox screwed up" are you not getting?If Fox spewed the garbage then this is their fault.How you cannot get this is beyond me.
Repeat after me a thousand times "Fox is at fault"...

Please have mercy and use the search function.
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:40


SO WHAT. I STILL don't care what Fox did.

You don't get in a car accident and go punch the person in the face because it was their fault.

EA as a developer/publisher of games really doesn't have any expertise to comment on things completely irrelevant to what happened.

Quote: "As video games continue to take audiences away from television, we expect to see more TV news stories warning parents about the corrupting influence of interactive entertainment."


This is stupid. It doesn't matter if that is your opinion/Jeff Brown's opinion, there is NO NEED for this comment in a letter meant to notify Fox of innaccuracies in their report. This was meant to poke fun. On this forum that is called "trolling".

Quote: "Do you watch the Fox Network? Do you watch Family Guy? Have you ever seen The OC? Do you think the sexual situations in Mass Effect are any more graphic than scenes routinely aired on those shows? Do you honestly believe that young people have more exposure to Mass Effect than to those prime time shows?"


This is also stupid. As it also has nothing to do with the innaccuracies of the report. The only reason why this is even in the letter is to make Fox look like hypocrites, whether they are or not.

Aside from that, why is the letter even leaked to the public in the first place? No one needed to know about it.
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:41 Edited at: 28th Jan 2008 21:07
Let it die. Krilik is not going to give up this one. It's just gonna be 'you are wrong and I am right'. Let him be. To him his opinion, to us ours.

He seems to confuse defending yourself or formally correcting lies about yourself as trolling. I am glad he's not a mod.

My opinion: EA was right, FOX was wrong. EA has the right to formally complain and they did so in a refreshingly friendly tone in the current 'legal' atmosphere.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 20:52
Quote: "there is NO NEED for this comment in a letter meant to notify Fox of innaccuracies in their report."

I agree, but at the same time I don't really care. It doesn't really mean much does it?

Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 21:04
Look even Jack Thompson is saying this was "Absolutely Ridiculous"!

Right Here

Quote: "To: Jack
From: Brian
I'm surprised you haven't been looking into Mass Effect.
http://kotaku.com/348692/ea-fighting-mad-about-fox-news-but-still-no-correction?cpage=2#viewcomments

To: Brian
From: Jack
Why would you be surprised. I don't see any problem with it. The guy who shot his mouth off about it had no idea what the Hell he was talking about.

To: Jack
From: Brian
You mean you're OK with mass effect?

To: Brian
From: Jack
Of course. This contrived controversy is absolutely ridiculous. Report that, why don't you?"


RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 21:13
Quote: "My opinion: EA was right, FOX was wrong. EA has the right to formally complain and they did so in a refreshingly friendly tone in the current 'legal' atmosphere."


My opinion: I don't condone all of EAs response, because Fox was wrong.

Quote: "I agree, but at the same time I don't really care. It doesn't really mean much does it?"


No it doesn't. But neither do the personal opinions of panel discussion on Fox news. The problem is people try to make it mean more than it is. That includes both sides.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 28th Jan 2008 21:27
Well, since Cooper has retracted her statements and said she's seen more graphical sexual content in episodes of Lost than in Mass Effect, this issue is moot.

It's also getting personal, and we're all going around in circles. Let's lock this while we're ahead.


Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 22:26:53
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 22:26:53