Tale

But why link there, and not a "hive mind" type site, were anyone can add their own review, that is similar to all of the other review sites? Perhaps, if you find one that's mature and doesn't emphasize just how idiotic people over the internet are and is not commercial (speaking of Amazon.com here), they'll put it up if you simply link it to them and recommend it.

So children should be stoned for being unruly -as should anyone who missuses the word "god"-? Biblical law is both laughable and dangerous at the same time, if only because so many nuts believe in it... Extremism is the culprit here. All extremism is dangerous. Anti-religious extremism just as much as the religious extremists.

It's the fact that parents might choose not to buy a game because of information linked by the ESRB, something that might, incorrectly, give it more weight in their eyes, due to bad review - one that might a negative review for only religious reasons. So, your problem is that someone might choose not to buy a game because they clicked the last link under the family friendly information section and took that to be an endorsement from the ESRB? That they completely ignored all the other links and went straight for that one and took it at face value without examing anything further, without reading the context and content of the scoring? That they didn't care about the other family friendly information websites or the sections that are about demos and reviews and only cared about that one web page for information despite it being not what they're actually looking for? That they went through all the effort of going to the ESRB website for information, but stopped just shy of actually paying attention to what they're clicking on and noticing that the site is overtly christian and espouses christian values? And that these people took this website's information to be of more value than the ESRB's rating itself? So, the problem you have with the ESRB website is that some hypothetical people might be complete idiots.

Because, as I have stated countless times already and you seem to blissfully gloss over, the site is not linked for the religious reviews. You say that, but almost every single thing in the site is laced with religion. Thus, even if they did not link to it for the views, the Christin world view is going to contaminate the majority of the the information. So what? Seriously, so what? What's the problem? What's the big deal? What's the dire consequence? Are they going to end up turning all parents into die hard Christians? Or are they going to manipulate the non-Christian's children into being Christians through their subtle manipulation of the non-Christian parents? What is the big problem you think having a single link to a site with a religious slant could possibly cause?

Because, as I have stated countless times already and you seem to blissfully gloss over, the site is not linked for the religious reviews. But instead the articles on how to communicate with your children your own values. But, let's step back a second. Let's assume you're right about something. They're being deceptive. So, what? You think they're pushing a pro-christian agenda with this? Do you think they're trying to promote games that will turn children into Christians by deceiving their parents? What possible reason could they have to place as the last link under that section, the position that is generally the least clicked link?

If you are linking recourses that are "websites that provide information about "family friendly" video games" you should not link to a website that is rating things based of their "Christian friendliness." That is deceiving for parents who are simply looking at things that might be good for their child and do not care about whether a game breaks biblical law. There's no deception there. You're calling it deception when it's not remotely deceptive. Family friendly, in the US, often has a religious context. For some, for enough that it is fair that a link representative of those interests is present. Just because the position of the website contrasts with your own does not mean anyone is being deceptive. It just means you're being ignorant. This is what the site is linked for. Family friendly information on how to communicate with your children. http://www.almenconi.com/articles.php?art_id=95 Note that no religion is mentioned. Note the liberal behaviors promoted. Note that he's talking about methods that have scientific and empirical backing.

No, everyone should have an equal chance, but not if they are going to spout off about their religion, or its laws, during the review and rate the game accordingly. The same thing goes for philosophical beliefs, so, for example, a Taoist should keep the teachings of the Tao De Ching out of his, or her, review. I defy you to justify why someone on a religious website should avoid the topic of religion in their opinions. Again, that site isn't linked for its reviews. Despite what you believe. They have a whole other section for review sites, that's not it. But, that's all pointless because THEY'RE NOT ENDORSING THE SITE. Cut to the chase, what's the big thing that's offending you here? 1) That a religious guy on a religious website cites his religion in his opinions? 2) That ESRB is endorsing this site? (They're not) 3) That the ESRB is endorsing his reviews? (They're not, the site isn't even listed under sites that offer reviews) 4) That the ESRB acknowledges religious people exist and links a website that may be relevant to their interests. 5) That the ESRB links to a website that attempts to help parents understand media, the effect it has, and how to handle this in concert with the desired values they have for their children, even though the values of the writer are in contrast with your own and they don't endorse the website. Sum it up in one sentence.

Yeah, Christians should have to sit at the back of the bus! But the members have to support those ratings for the ratings to have any value.

Only for Smash, only for Smash. :'( Wait, what? Are Warlocks being made into a PHB class? Nifty! Now to wait until the announcement of the first 4e D&D game. And hopefully it's good. And has Wild Mages.

A major point in contesting the supposed conservative slant of the ESRB: The IDSA, which runs the ESRB, has as members id Software and Midway. The companies behind DOOM and Mortal Kombat. Obviously John Carmack has gone fundie. Lucasarts, the company that owns the rights to the TSL game that was rated T for a small animated pool of blood, is also a member of the ISA. So, apparently Lucasarts is too conservative about its own games.

Sorry, it should have been anti-holocaust-denier. And I meant that you, or, at least, the majority of people, would not want games, or their advertisements, rated according to that belief - much as I do not want games or game advertisements rated for "sacrilege." Then don't visit a holocaust denial website to read their game reviews. That website wasn't linked for its game reviews. The ESRB weren't even endorsing that website.

All I'm seeing is a double standard. People aren't allowed to criticize something based upon their religion, but you're allowed to criticize based upon them expressing their religion, you're allowed to criticize based upon even tangential associating with a site that has a religious slant. The ESRB shouldn't warn about minor instances of blood because someone might overreact, but they should avoid even linking to a site that causes you to overreact. They don't endorse it. They just link to it for the documents, which are informative and reasonable, that are about helping parents behave resonsibly in their choices for their children.

Halfway through Wolves of the Calla. Finally commiting myself to finishing this series. I intersperse chapters with a few minutes of Phantom Hourglass (or Brain Age 2) so that I don't feel I'm neglecting das Videospiel.

You and Cant.

2 years? If we're lucky. To be true to the desires of the majority of Deus Ex fans, they'll need to take longer than that, hopefully they do. I liked the sequal though. I'm in a minority on this forum, perhaps alone, but I did enjoy it. But, with a complete different team involved, I'll make a point to avoid hoping too much either way. I really have a hard time believing that such a (character) skill reliant FPS game as the first can get released in the modern market. Whether that's because it's more demanding of developers to make or more complicated for players I won't bother speculating.

Yeah, assuming the next D&D cRPG even has Warlocks.

They should just scrap the setting because they're not going to have any magic.

You are saying that Oblivion's blood and gore, which was the principle reason for the change in rating, could not have been seen if they actually played the game and visited the plane of Oblivion or faced those naked torn up zombies that often had viscera hanging out? The primary cause for the change in rating was due to boobie textures that were hidden behind clothing textures that can not be removed without modifications. "the presence in the PC version of the game of a locked-out art file that, if accessed by using an apparently unauthorized third party tool, allows the user to play the game with topless versions of female characters." Playing a game hides more than it reveals and places silly budens upon the reviewers that serve no rational purpose. As for the gore they cited after they started re-reviewing it because of this mod? It was a single body, only particularly viewable up close, and in the right lighting conditions. Something that is far better for a developer to show than it is for the ESRB to have to find.

Neither what happened in San Andreas or Oblivion would have been seen from playing. The information packets they have given to them are designed to reveal context.

It's ridiculous to think they should. Playing the games doesn't give half the information that the ESRB is handed.

Malleate comes from a weird box you find in Thay. You use the box on an essence (I think), you get the feat.