Zmid

Well, I like the new skin. However, I am getting the same bug as Abramul got. For clarity's sake, I've posted a screenie to show what I mean.

And how would a kids parents know if any of their kids friends has M rated games? And what if the response is 'that's none of your business'? Should the parents not let their child 'hang out' with certain kids, or be friends with them, simply because there's a possibility that those kids might have M rated games? Plus, of course, this assumes that the parents of their child's friend even know he has M rated games. They might be convinced their 'little darlings' would never in a million years play such games. There, you run into the same problem - schools would simply be unable to follow every single kid around, literally looking over their shoulder, even if you disregard the fact this would be a blatent invasion of the kids' privacy.

Why not? Why is the government any more suited to rating games than a private organisation? As I've already pointed out, the government can be influenced. A private organisation that exists solely to give games age ratings can't be, and, as long as there is sufficient checks and balances and a sufficient level of transparancy, I can't see how it could get in any way biased. ...in which case, it is illegal to sell the game. You can in the UK as well. The only restriction that is placed on you is that if you are under 18 and want to buy an 18 rated game, you have to get your parents to buy it for you. Once they have bought it, if they give you permission to play that game, you can play it to your heart's content. That's hopeless idealism. Giving an organization power and saying "please be impartial forever" is just asking for problems. The entire existance and function of this organisation would be to rate games. Why wouldn't they be impartial? But what if they want to have their kids have as much freedom as possible, yet not have them get their hands on unsuitable games without their permission? You're basically saying that they are not allowed to have this happen as it infringes on the child's freedom. What about the parents freedom to parent their child as they see fit? What about the parents freedom to peace of mind? Then deal with it. Lock up the consoles and only let them be used with supervision, give them a non-admin computer account so they can't install games. The better system is for parents to take some responsibility instead of expecting the government to protect them from everything they don't want to see. What about at school with their friends who have Gameboys/DSs/PSPs? At their friend's house? When playing with their own Gameboy/DS/PSP? Should my brother and/or his wife literally be following their kids around, looking over their shoulders every minute of every day? Unless your answer is 'yes', in which case these kids get zero privacy (and, of course, ignoring the fact that, as there are four of them, even then, my brother and his wife would literally have to split in two to do this, as well as my brother giving up his job), then the law has to slightly restrict their freedom in another way to help parents out. Also, remember this is a relatively minor restriction in their freedom. If their parents say it's OK to play them (by buying it and giving it to them), they can play these games all they want. Come to think of it, you're banging on about 'it's the parents responsibility'. Well, this law would, in a very real way, force parents to take responsibility. No longer could you blame a kid being violent purely on him playing violent games. Why? Because if he's playing violent games, his parents would have bought them for him, so, even if you try the tired old excuse of 'it was the games causing the violence', it's still the parents' fault.

Assuming this law is enforced in much the same way as our UK law, this law would make it a mandatory sytem. If it isn't done this way, then, yes, I agree with you, it makes no sense to have this law. As for it being government run, IMO, the government is not the best organisation to run it, as they can be influenced by, for example, giving a particular game a high rating if they think it will win them votes at the next election. ...unless they do it the same way as over here, where, if a BBFC rated game goes out on the shelves without a rating icon, the publisher is liable for prosecution. ...unless, as I said, they have a group that is as independant and impartial as possible deciding if a game gets a rating and what rating it gets. As I've already written both earlier on in this thread and in another, what happens if the child buys the game? If he/she knows their parents would never let them have the game, unless their parents give them zero privacy and act almost Nazi-like, then it is quite possible the child would be able to buy the game without their parents knowledge, and quite possibly have it for quite a few days/weeks/months before their parents discover this. I'm not normally in support of laws that restrict people's freedoms, but, in this case, I would simply not like to think that my nieces and nephews, who are all under 10, would be able to get their hands on games like Manhunt, so I am in support of this one. It isn't perfect, but I can't think of a better workable system. No, in this case, I would say it's a case of the law helping parents to take care of their kids. Remember, if the parent so decides, he/she can totally disregard this law and buy these games and give them to their kids. If this law made even that illegal, then I would be agreeing with you.

Well, over here, anything that doesn't have a BBFC certificate has a PEGI rating, which are guidelines for the benefit of consumers. They have zero basis in law, so if a shop breaks them, there's zero consequences, but the theory behind them is that they allow consumers (most especially parents) to have some idea of what level of violence/swearing/whatever else is in the games before they buy them. However, in practice, fairly often, they may as well not exist, as, even when parents do actually see them and pay attention to them, sometimes they are inaccurate and sometimes even contradict each other. As far as introducing this law in the US goes, if this were to go ahead everywhere, I would say either have the ESRB as the US equivalent of the PEGI system, or scrap it altogether. I would also say have a group that is as independant and impartial as possible in charge of deciding what game gets what rating under this new law. You're looking at this arse about face. You're saying 'Is it right to not sell these games to minors simply because they have these little icons on them?' I look at it as 'Should games like Manhunt be sold to children?'. I would say that the answer is 'not without the express consent of their parents'. How do you implement some kind of system that prevents the sale of these games to minors without the consent of their parents? You give each game an age rating, then put an icon on the box saying what the rating of the game is, then make it illegal to sell the game to anyone under that age.

You might think not, but I can tell you I know what I'm talking about when I say it does happen. And I'm talking about over here in the UK where such a law already exists. Of course, the other thing is, what happens if the 8 year old buys Manhunt himself?

To a certain extent, yes. However, if they enforce it the same way they do over here in the UK, if you sell an 18 rated game to a 16 year old and get caught, no matter what the circumstances, even if the guy in question actually looks about 30, you will probably get fined and/or jailed (and probably lose your job). Even that's not perfect, as kids could still buy games without their parents' knowledge. An age-based system that parents or guardians can disregard if they so choose is about the best workable system, IMO, but it's not perfect.

I am impressed by this game. It's a simulation of commanding a small squadron or fleet of starships, ranging from small, fast and nimble frigates to large, lumbering, powerful battleships. In the single-player, you get taken through a fairly good story-line where you start off as the captain of a fairly small and weak Stilleto-class corvette, then move to a cruiser-sized ship of alien origin, which, you discover, is highly adaptable. Without giving too much away, you then travel through a jumphole to a distant part of space, where you discover a couple of different alien races and a surprise or two. It has a multiplayer option, which, if you get a good server, is fairly intense, though there doesn't seem to be a very large online community. The gameplay is well thought out, as, instead of commanding vast armadas of ships, you command, at most, a dozen or so, but goes into a lot of detail in the commanding of them. It is fairly focused on combat, but there is a little bit of resource management in it, and the way this is done is about the only complaint I have about the game. In the single-player, before each mission, you can configure your ship(s) with different weapons, fighters, shields, etc, etc, etc, but you only have a limited number of each component, and fitting or removing each component takes a different number of resource points, which can be VERY limited. This, coupled with the fact that missions can unexpectedly change from what was said in the pre-mission briefing, means that you can suddenly find that the way you've set up your ship(s) means you are unable to complete the mission. The only option in this circumstance is to reload the autosave from immediately before the mission and start again. However, apart from that, the level of detail is very well done. For example, you can target each individual weapon on a single ship on a different enemy ship, then lauch fighters and order each wing to attack yet more targets, and there is also a 'commando boat', which is used for two things - in the single-player, exploring derelicts and rescuing survivors from downed vessels, or, in both single and multiplayer, sabotage, where your men fly the boat to the airlock on the enemy vessel, blast their way in, then destroy that ship's components from the inside. Which brings me to another detail - each ship has individually destroyable components. This means that you can do things like send in a small frigate or two against a battleship to take out it's flak turrets, then pull them back before they get destroyed and order your carrier to send in fighters and bombers (which are too small to be targeted by anything bar flak turrets) to pound the battleship into submission. In short, if you liked Homeworld, but thought there was too much time arsing around with collecting resources and having to build up your fleet, this is the game for you.

My own opinion: It would be extremely difficult to do an Elder Scrolls game as an MMOG, as a large part of them (so far, at least), is that you are in some way special, for example, in Morrowind, you were the person who was supposed to fulfill the Prophecies of the Incarnate. If Bethesda did something like simply taking Morrowind and tacking on some MMOG code and changing the quests to be suitable for multiple players, there would be thousands of people who are all 'special', which would make it not very special at all. If they were planning a MMO Elder Scrolls game, they would have to do three things: 1) Forget about any sort of detailed storyline. This is one of the strengths of the previous ES games, so this could turn out to be quite hard to do. 2) In the back history of the game, somehow make it normal for all these powerful warriors/magicians/thieves/whatever else to be wandering around the place. Very difficult to pull off in the ES universe. 3) Have sufficient variety so that people enjoy playing it and continue to do so for a very long time whether they be experienced in the ES universe through the previous games or have just stepped into it for the first time, but also keep it sufficiently like the previous ES games that they don't alienate their established fanbase. Again, very difficult to do. It is possible they could do all three of the above and make a good MMO ES game, but it would require a lot of skill, a lot of thought, and quite possibly a lot of time.

Perhaps 'satire' should be added to that list of words to look up? :grin:

The UN does listen to America, as America is a member of the UN. It doesn't just listen to America, though.

Now that is an interesting point. What if there are intelligent non-human life-forms, and they have visited Earth, and, in fact, are all around us, but either they have deliberately camouflaged themselves or are just naturally of a nature we cannot perceive? That would explain why there's never been any definitive evidence of alien encounters whilst at the same time the possibility of us being alone in the universe being staggeringly small. If I recall correctly, 'what is seven multiplied by nine?', which tells you quite a bit about the universe. :P

Hey, nice one. Happy Birthday. Also, if some of your potential customers were put off by your age, IMO, that says more about them than it does about you.

Yeah, and it's not bad either... :P

*After stuffing his face, White Wolf looks up.* "Hmm, that was a nice breakfast and a half." *Pulling out a small datapad, he punches a few buttons.* "Number One, how goes it on Earth II?" "Well, sir, long range sensors indicate that the whole planet, and quite possibly the whole universe, is up a certain creek without a quite vital implement." "Of course it is, you fool, I'm at Milliways." "No, sir, I mean the WHOLE universe." "Aaah." *Pausing to consider his options, White Wolf thinks a sharp exit is prudent.* "Start the engines, we're leaving." *Getting up, he puts away his datapad and gets out his transportation module.* "Ancalagon, Mojlnir, the company's been excellent, but I gotta go. Now." *With that, he presses a button and transports to his ship, which promptly disappears with an eye-watering display of multi-coloured light. Possibly including mauve.*