Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
That looks awesome, to bad the actual graphics in the game won't look that good.
Well, I just played "Dance Dance Revolution" last night for the first time in a year, played two hours straight on 'Difficult' level, now my legs ache.
Portal 2 is being delayed till April of next year. I'm gonna go cry now.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Portal 2 is being delayed till April of next year.
Are you sure, that has been an official announcement? By looking at the ofiicial Steam Powered Store page, it still says 10'th of February, 2011.
And I couldn't find any official announcements of it. Did you find it on the Steam Forums?
This is where I found it http://g4tv.com/games/mac/63786/portal-2/
Not sure how credible it is. I read an article about it on the same site
Played DDR 2 hours straight once again. I spent half an hour trying to get an AA on 'Walk like an Egyptian'.
Don't worry, It's proly gonna be rated T cause there's no blood.
Hmm, looking at the gameplay footage, I would say M. It does have blood in game, although that trailer lacks it.
Of course, I kind of feel like the whole violence/gore thing is a bit silly. Killing is killing; don't understand why ratings boards think it's so much worse when there's blood involved.
Of course, I kind of feel like the whole violence/gore thing is a bit silly. Killing is killing; don't understand why ratings boards think it's so much worse when there's blood involved.
But killing is in every game so there has to be some way to rate it. I mean when Mario jumps on the turtles then hurtles them off a cliff he's killing them. When you fire buzz's laser in Toy story 2 you're killing the toys. When you destroy the bricks in brick break you're killing the bricks.
Mmm, yeah, but that's kind of my point. What makes blood an effective measure of violence? If Mario jumped on the turtles and they exploded into a red cloud, I don't doubt it would get a higher rating than it does. But either way the "turtles" are dead (turtles in quotations because even the most advanced AI doesn't come close to living; everything is an action acted out by independent bodies that don't recognize life- I say this because while I'm sure you recognize it, also any child who is exposed to modern media should understand the concept. It's not the product's fault if a user is delusional. Of course, opponents of videogames don't agree with that idea). We're assigning value based on the execution of death as opposed to the idea itself, and that idea is supposedly the main reason for rating these games higher in the first place; protecting children who might emulate the actions or place less value on life. Killing in any form should be undesirable if that is the case, although it is understandable that killing animals and the nonliving would be less rigidly enforced since they are generally ignored in real life anyway. The whole ratings thing is just a pet peeve of mine. Honestly, I think any child that kills in real life because they saw it in a videogame is mentally disturbed and/or the result of negligent parents. The system isn't helping at all.
Linking back to the original post, I guess I just don't understand why Unilego's guardians would care about an arbitrary letter rating if it were solely based on the fact that violence is/isn't depicted with "blood".
It seems to me, admittedly without having looked into the issue much, that the reason certain virtual deaths are considered less appropriate for children is their increased realism. A zombie whose head explodes, sending blood and viscera about, "dies" much more graphically than a Koopa in Super Mario Bros. It takes things from a defeat of evil by good in a whimsical, fantastical setting to a realistic ending of life in a real-life world. While it's certainly unlikely that a child seeing this will emulate such behavior, it seems obvious that the exposure will desensitize the child towards the experience, which seems unfortunate to me.
It's hardly a black and white issue, though, which is why blanket declarations of acceptance or, conversely, rejection are shortsighted.
I agree with Justice here. Mario stomping on a Koopa is not considered as graphic due to the Koopa's being ugly mushrooms of fantasy that die in such an un-graphic way that you do not stop and think "Wow, I just brutally squashed a living being to death. I am a cruel and violent person".
And yes, beating a human-like Zombie to death with a club is much more likely to be emulated in real life than jumping on top of a giant mushroom.
Eh, maybe I can simplify my position by going back to shooters only. If there's a game where you shoot a man and he just falls over, why is that inherently more suitable for minors than the same game where blood shoots out and he falls over? I understand the case for reality perhaps desensitizing children to violence, but really, couldn't the argument be made that a lack of reality makes violence more acceptable to children? Extreme gore may be an exception. I just think that if parents aren't going to be involved enough in their child's life to teach them reality from fantasy, the chance they will decide what games the kid can play based on a rating is minuscule, and even if they do, regardless of the graphic content contained within these games, the children are acting out killings. Making the ratings system teeter on little things like blood rather than big things like human death just complicates matters and gives inattentive parents that much more opportunity to make bad decisions.
I've been playing zombies on COD 7: Black ops. Its so addictive!
Well in CoD:WaW you can blow peoples limbs off and set men on fire. So it gets a rating of 15. Then Modern warfare 2 gets a rating of 18 even though you can't set people on fire or blow their limbs off. And oblivion gets a rating of 15, when it is about as violent as Spyro the dragon. Then there's Red Dead Redemption which is an 18, but it doesn't seem to have anything in it that should make it 18. I reckon they just gave the game the rating based on the fact Rockstar made it.
Anyway i have learned not to even bother with ratings, they just pull numbers out their arses anyway.
I went to my friends house and played Goldeneye yesterday...
I'm gonna go beg for it for christmas. 
the graphics on call of duty black ops is amazing! i just played it at my cousin's house- it sooooo addictive!
on a second note, for those who don't read the cafe corner (though i think everyone reads that)
I just downloaded steam, and now downloading alien swarm because some people say it's a really fun game- so i thought i'd try it. 3% though
Then there's Red Dead Redemption which is an 18, but it doesn't seem to have anything in it that should make it 18. I reckon they just gave the game the rating based on the fact Rockstar made it..
Most cowboy films have the same kind of things in them and are rated PG or U. So I can't see any other reason for the high rating. The ratings system is just rather weirc.
I'm not a fan of just looking at the letter slapped on the case, which is why I appreciate sites like www.commonsensemedia.org
Thanks for all of those points I can bring up to my parents, guys. 
I didn't think I'd get so much stuff in my favor. And thank you for the link, Jargon. That'll definitely help.
Posts [ 2,761 to 2,780 of 3,822 ]
