Odds and ends
Sorry for the light blogging this week. There was some overload from E3 blogging last week and not wanting to dwell on that stuff. Plus half the stories this week were about analysts saying the same stuff I've been saying for months. But here's some (mostly) non-E3 tidbits:
* I'm digging New Super Mario Bros., and can't wait for the DS Lite to come out so I can try out some vs. play. I'll have a full review up soon. Meanwhile, it looks like the 99 free lives trick from the original Super Mario Bros. (which I could never pull off) is back.
* If you thought $599 was a high price for PlayStation 3, be glad you don't live in England. Eurogamer reports that the PS3 will set Brits back 425 pounds -- or $798. Ouch. (Hat tip: Kotaku)
* In stupid video game law news, Minnesota's House has approved a bill that would assess a $25 civil fine against a minor who buys an M- or AO-rated video game. That's a different approach from the most recent string of game laws -- which have all been struck down or enjoined -- that made it a crime to sell those games to minors. (Louisiana's House just passed one of those bills on Tuesday.) But the Minnesota bill would be unconstitutional for the same reason as all the others: Violent video games are not considered obscene speech, so they are protected -- like violent TV shows and movies are -- under the First Amendment. Just because the fine would be assessed on the buyer rather than the seller doesn't change that restricting the sale of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional. (Hat tip: GamePolitics.com)
* There were a bunch of stories this week about an Internet game that lets you relive the Columbine High School shootings (Hat tip: GamePolitics). There's an "uproar" over the game; Columbine families and others are shocked and appalled. First off, as the AP/Rocky Mountain News/Washington Post point out, the game has been out for a year. People only know about it at all because some video game blogs just found it and wrote about it (the game has been downloaded almost 40,000 times -- but more than 30,000 of those downloads were this month, the Post reports). Secondly, the game has old-school Nintendo graphics and isn't graphic. Thirdly, there have been books and movies about the shootings. But beyond all that: Who cares? The game doesn't in any way diminish the horror or the grief or the weird cultural moment we all unfortunately shared in 1999. I'm certainly not going to play it. If you think it's offensive, don't play it. The only reason this is a big deal is because it's a video game. If everyone had just ignored it, nobody would have even known it was there.
* I'm digging New Super Mario Bros., and can't wait for the DS Lite to come out so I can try out some vs. play. I'll have a full review up soon. Meanwhile, it looks like the 99 free lives trick from the original Super Mario Bros. (which I could never pull off) is back.
* If you thought $599 was a high price for PlayStation 3, be glad you don't live in England. Eurogamer reports that the PS3 will set Brits back 425 pounds -- or $798. Ouch. (Hat tip: Kotaku)
* In stupid video game law news, Minnesota's House has approved a bill that would assess a $25 civil fine against a minor who buys an M- or AO-rated video game. That's a different approach from the most recent string of game laws -- which have all been struck down or enjoined -- that made it a crime to sell those games to minors. (Louisiana's House just passed one of those bills on Tuesday.) But the Minnesota bill would be unconstitutional for the same reason as all the others: Violent video games are not considered obscene speech, so they are protected -- like violent TV shows and movies are -- under the First Amendment. Just because the fine would be assessed on the buyer rather than the seller doesn't change that restricting the sale of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional. (Hat tip: GamePolitics.com)
* There were a bunch of stories this week about an Internet game that lets you relive the Columbine High School shootings (Hat tip: GamePolitics). There's an "uproar" over the game; Columbine families and others are shocked and appalled. First off, as the AP/Rocky Mountain News/Washington Post point out, the game has been out for a year. People only know about it at all because some video game blogs just found it and wrote about it (the game has been downloaded almost 40,000 times -- but more than 30,000 of those downloads were this month, the Post reports). Secondly, the game has old-school Nintendo graphics and isn't graphic. Thirdly, there have been books and movies about the shootings. But beyond all that: Who cares? The game doesn't in any way diminish the horror or the grief or the weird cultural moment we all unfortunately shared in 1999. I'm certainly not going to play it. If you think it's offensive, don't play it. The only reason this is a big deal is because it's a video game. If everyone had just ignored it, nobody would have even known it was there.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home