I really enjoyed Trey Walker's latest Gamespotting article, about game names.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/113001/p7_01.html

Here's a quote:

"I'm starting to fear that game companies will run out of options. There are only so many combinations left, especially in the tactical action game genre. According to my calculations, the only name options that still remain for new squad-based shooters (without resorting to original terms and phrases) are Flashforce: Codename Delta, Covert Operation: Squad Zero, and Strike Point Eagle. You could also use Squadpoint Zero: Operation Strike Eagle Delta, but that one's a bit over the top."

Not quite the virtuosity of Old Man Murray (when they can be bothered to update their site), but still pretty good satire.

Yeah, when I heard that Strifeshadow was coming out, I immediately thought, "Uh oh, they're running out of names for video games."

DeanCo--

Daikatana II is still available.

I felt that way when I heard of WinBack (a console game I haven't played). I heard that the goal of the game is to "win back" some location or other that the bad guys captured.

Kind of like having a Final Fantasy... 10 times in a row.

-Andrew

Speaking of WinBack:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2001/11/30/state1142EST0068.DTL

Speaking of child pornography:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips742/

(yes, it really is related, and it's a compelling point)

Speaking of that child porn act (worth bringing up, actually)...

I think it's total bullshit, and the govt has gone way too far. They're regulating people's freedom to own something based on the fact that it COULD be used for a crime. They don't apply similar logic to guns, though. Or swords. Or completely virtual depictions of other heinous crimes like rape (of non-children), murder, etc.

They're in effect telling us that the only content that should be legally allowed is that which is wholly safe for the perverse and mentally unbalanced.

It's just creepy that the virtual images are treated the SAME as the real images in the eyes of the law. Something is not right about that.

Not that I want a lot of synthetic child porn running around, but it raises the question: when will other virtual activities be treated like their real world counterparts in the eyes of the law?

I'm not sure that's a door I want opened.

Me neither. Child pornography is illegal because it harms children; possession of child pornography is illegal because it supports an illicit industry based on harming children. With virtual child pornography, there is no causal link with harm being inflicted on anyone.

Whatever reason they give, lawmakers want to make it illegal because they believe that it's distasteful. And they're right, it is. But the first amendment was designed to protect speech and other forms of expression that are distasteful but which do not actually cause measurable harm to anyone, and I'd argue that this falls under first amendment protection. Unfortunately, we (as a country) seem to take the first amendment less and less seriously with each passing year.

As far as I can tell, the only argument you could make for banning virtual child porn is that might indulge a person's darker instincts and makes them more prone to act in more overt ways (i.e. child abuse) later on down the line.

So, is it a slippery slope into moral depravity, or a slippery slope into an Orwellian thoughtcrime state?

But of course, other acts have been banned not because they harm anyone but because they are simply deemed distasteful. Isn't sodomy still technically illegal in some states?

My, what a difficult argument to get passionately behind...

I don't believe there's a causal relationship between media violence and real violence. Or between pornography and rape. I never have believed there is one. Never.

So why do I believe, strongly, that there's one between fake pedophilia and the real thing? Maybe it's because I don't believe there is such a thing as the harmless coveting of children. Even in thought.

I've always been libertarian on these sorts of issues, always... but, even though I understand what you guys are saying, I'm much more comfortable with this being illegal.

I also don't believe it's a slippery slope. I understand the Governmental censorship domino theory, but I've never fully believed in it. No more than I believe the NRA's assertion that the tiniest ban on mega-super-machine-pistols is going to lead to the revocation of the 2nd Amendment. The leap is vast.

Anyway, just being honest here. I'm not judging anyone (except pedophiles).

If it makes anyone feel better, sodomy is illegal in plenty of states. The question is whether or not the laws are enforceable. I suspect this virtual kiddie porn thing won't be enforceable (by the time it gets to a high court) either.

-Andrew

Oh, excuse me, I didn't read the link. It's already at the highest court. I've actually been avoiding this whole issue because it makes me feel like a hypocrite. I've got certain in-laws who are very anti-violent gaming, so I've argued against laws like this for years. I should be arguing with Jason and Ben here, but I just can't.

I'm just not comfortable with the idea of anyone making, even fake, kiddie porn.

-Hypocrites

Should it be illegal for someone to think about having sex with a kid? What's the difference between the law in question and this? I can't come up with a meaningful one.

Well, it's already illegal to possess actual kiddie porn. Has been since the 60's or so, in several countries. I think that law was upheld by the Supreme Court, but I could be wrong. This is about it being illegal to have *fake* (but realistic) computer generated kiddie porn. So, possession and/or creation of the material would be the difference. Thought crime is still untraceable, so that's safe, no matter who's prosecuting.

Why didn't this come up before 1996 regarding drawings or paintings I wonder?

-Andrew

Sure, even some relatively mainstream manga skirts close to kiddie porn (not, er, that I've ever seen it).

'Why didn't this come up before 1996 regarding drawings or paintings I wonder?'

The obvious answer is that they didn't have the new-fangled cudgel of the SCARY INTERNET to beat it with.

The standard line on possession of child pornography being illegal makes perfect sense to me: it requires a child to make it. Interestingly, it's not illegal to own a video of someone getting shot or raped, though.

As there's no actual children involved, the government falls back on the line that it would encourage people to have sex with children. I think this is silly, as there's no difference whatsoever in reasoning between this and banning crime movies. Or privately funded sex education programs for teenagers, or whatever activity you're concerned with.

Obviously, how bad the end result of the activity is matters, but it's odd that child molestation is rated as worse than murder under this criteria.

I do believe child molestation to be worse than murder, actually.

"Interestingly, it's not illegal to own a video of someone getting shot or raped, though."

It is, depending on the circumstance. But there's probably less of a need for a specific law. There aren't international crime rings specializing in creating snuff films or rape videos. Pedophiles are actually highly organized. Isn't there a fanzine? -quick internet search- yes, NAMBLA. I saw something on cable regarding those porn prosecutions from the 70's. The FBI agent intervied claimed they couldn't find a single "snuff" film. But they found piles of kiddie porn from every country... Pedophiles are apparently organized enough to create a market driven demand. (shudder)

"as there's no difference whatsoever in reasoning between this and banning crime movies"

You're serious?

-Andrew

I'm completely serious. Someone might want to kill people after watching Natural Born Killers, as the entire movie fetishizes impulsive murder. What's the difference?

Child molestation worse than murder?

Dunno about that (of course there are a lot of different ways to commit a murder, some more twisted than others). How about child molestation versus child murder?

While I could care less if they banned virtual child porn, the issue as it relates to violent games hits closer to home. Partly there's a social stigma involved. I mean, violent play have been a part of natural social development for generations, while child pornography is almost universally frowned upon.

Where do you draw the line? Virtual child porn might be confused for the real thing, but what about a drawing of child porn? What if you run it through a Photoshop filter; does it become art? Similarly, at what point does a game become socially irresponsible? For that matter, what about books?

I'm all for first amendment rights, but I'm happy to denounce virtual child porn on the same grounds as real child porn since the message it conveys is purposefully anti-social. Violent games are a tougher matter. No one (of at least average intelligence *cough*) is going to mistake video game violence for the real thing. Even so, developers need to be wary of the message they are conveying. I'm reminded of the prominent anti-graffiti notice displayed when starting up a game of Jet Grind Radio (which relies on a graffiti game-mechanic). If a child is getting all of his or her moral instruction from games, there are bigger problems that warrant attention.

- Alan

I'm with Andrew on this one. Making virtual child porn illegal seems too much like encouragement of the real thing to me. You can also see how it will lead to the development of an industry catering to this sort of thing. And I don't want any part of a society that features this stuff as an acceptable, if fringe, form of erotica. Hey, who needs Barely Legal anymore? Let's go all the way, Larry! First Amendment this all you want, but a line has to be drawn at some point, and for me this is it.

Oh, it's not like I give a damn about someone getting arrested for producing virtual kiddie porn; it'd be amusing to see the governments official guildlines for "how sexy is too sexy when you're drawing kids." Are come-hither looks acceptable? How short can skirts be?

I'm just certain that #2 on the agenda once this passes is the same people (Lieberman, et al) doing the same thing for violent entertainment. Precedents have an awful lot of power. Between stuff like this, hate crime laws, and campus speech codes I seriously wonder what the hell kind of larger trend is shaping up.

Well, I'm certainly not opposed to a law on virtual child porn. In fact, I'd encourage and vote for it.

But you guys started talking violent games which brings up a very important issue that we're facing in the next five or so years. As the virtual worlds start visually approximating the real world, to the point that the two start to become indistinguishable, we've got a problem. A game that allows you to walk up behind someone and pull a trigger at point blank range and then watch as their brains are sprayed all over the pavement along with lots of itty bitty pieces of skull is going to cross a major line for a large segment of the population.

There is a very real difference between the passive entertainment of a film where I'm NOT that guy up there, I'm just watching him, and a game where I'm dictating that guy's actions. If there are numerous games where I'm able to completely disregard morality, it stands to reason that my behavior might be altered in real life. The key being that the two worlds are virtually identical. Distinguishing between the two could become quite difficult for a large segment of the population.

We have to be careful and developers should be wary of what they create. There are definitely some lines they shouldn't cross and Max Payne, crossed one of them with the dead baby scene.

I'm not convinced that any arguments of censorship are going to stand up if the product in question is so life-like it would be hard for people to grasp it as alternate reality.

--Dave

Well, Max Payne is a LONG WAY from something people can't grasp as being distinct from reality. If you are talking about virtual reality technology that is far more lifelike, well, we'll see. But we sure aren't there yet.

"But of course, other acts have been banned not because they harm anyone but because they are simply deemed distasteful."

That doesn't make it right, though. Most of those laws wouldn't stand up in court if they were ever enforced, either.

"I understand the Governmental censorship domino theory, but I've never fully believed in it."

In this case, it's not much of a leap. You'd be setting a pretty clear legal precedent. If it's okay to make one thing illegal on the basis that it might "inspire" people to cause harm (even though the thing itself causes none), why not another? Why wouldn't violent video games be next on the list?

"I'm just not comfortable with the idea of anyone making, even fake, kiddie porn."

I'm not either, but I don't think my discomfort is grounds for making something illegal. I'm not comfortable with organized religion, either, but I wouldn't advocate a ban of that.

"I'm all for first amendment rights, but I'm happy to denounce virtual child porn on the same grounds as real child porn since the message it conveys is purposefully anti-social."

So?

"Making virtual child porn illegal seems too much like encouragement of the real thing to me."

And to many people, DOOM seems like encouragement to slaughter schoolchildren. But even if it IS that, DOOM isn't responsible for the slaughtering. It's just a thing. Things don't make moral choices--people do. I find the societal trend of shifting responsibility away from people and the choices that they make and onto the inanimate things around them very disturbing. You want to talk about a slippery slope, that's a HUGE one.

"First Amendment this all you want, but a line has to be drawn at some point, and for me this is it."

So what is that line, exactly? You seem to know clearly where it is, so explain it to me. From where I'm standing, it seems to be drawn clearly around "things that you find really distasteful." And if you are going to argue for that kind of line, then you are going to have to smile and nod when someone else finds something that YOU like "really distasteful."

Certainly there's no accounting for taste. However, I find Britney Spears' music distasteful in a completely different way than I find murdered babies distasteful. Semantics and all that.

---

Quote:

And to many people, DOOM seems like encouragement to slaughter schoolchildren. But even if it IS that, DOOM isn't responsible for the slaughtering. It's just a thing. Things don't make moral choices--people do. I find the societal trend of shifting responsibility away from people and the choices that they make and onto the inanimate things around them very disturbing. You want to talk about a slippery slope, that's a HUGE one.

---

"Certainly there's no accounting for taste. However, I find Britney Spears' music distasteful in a completely different way than I find murdered babies distasteful."

Fair enough. But laws aren't based on your tastes alone--other people may have differing opinions. What if I find violent video games to be as distasteful as virtual child pornography? Some people do, you know. Can you defend your right to play DOOM while simultaneously condemning virtual kiddie porn? Isn't that a little hypocritical? What meaningfully distinguishes one from the other, aside from your own personal tastes?

"Sure, but why is child pornography illegal in the first place?"

Because producing child pornography involves harming a minor by taking advantage of them, sexually. Virtual kiddie porn, while vile in its own right, does not necessarily involve causing harm to anyone. A law condemning it would be based largely on the fact that society finds it distasteful, even if it is not harmful to other members of society in any meaningful way.

Let me put it another way: if I took away the "kiddie porn" part of the argument and simply presented you with the circumstances in general terms, would you have the same reaction?

---

Quote:

Virtual kiddie porn, while vile in its own right, does not necessarily involve causing harm to anyone. A law condemning it would be based largely on the fact that society finds it distasteful, even if it is not harmful to other members of society in any meaningful way.

---

"Let me put it another way: if I took away the "kiddie porn" part of the argument and simply presented you with the circumstances in general terms, would you have the same reaction?"

Of course not. My reaction isn't entirely logical. As I said in my original message, this is the line where my logical libertarianism simply dies. I can defend Doom, I can defend hunting, I can defend GTA 3 (and I'm firmly against the subject matter there), I can defend the song Cop Killer, I can defend fur (even though I'd never wear it), but I can't bring myself to defend virtual kiddie porn. Even on principal.

Maybe I'm just no longer idealistic enough to look at this in a cold and rational way anymore (I'm 30 and I have a daughter now). I absolutely see a causal relationship and I absolutely see a freedom I want squashed here.

-Andrew

'I absolutely see a causal relationship and I absolutely see a freedom I want squashed here.'

Well, I can't think of anything to say to that.

I'm surprised no one has asked the obvious question: how do you prove that a virtual girl is under-age? The makers of virtual child pornography could simply claim that it was merely a representation of an adult pretending to be a school girl. As far as I am aware it isn't illegal to have sex with a woman dressed as a schoolgirl, nor is it illegal to watch such things. So how could they make it illegal to watch a pretend woman prentending to be an under-age girl having pretend sexual intercourse with a pretend man?

"I'm surprised no one has asked the obvious question: how do you prove that a virtual girl is under-age?"

I'm sure in certain cases it would be pretty obvious.

---

Quote:

I'm surprised no one has asked the obvious question: how do you prove that a virtual girl is under-age?

---

"I'm sure in certain cases it would be pretty obvious."

Is it just me, or does this sentence anyone else horny? I'M KIDDING!

"Well, I can't think of anything to say to that."

I agree that there is a difference between violence and child pornography: the former is frowned upon but acceptable in many circumstances. The latter is a taboo. So I'm not sure they're directly related.

"I'm sure in certain cases it would be pretty obvious."

Saying "it's obvious!" when asked to prove the virtual age of a virtual girl in a virtual pornographic game would have you ripped apart by highly paid corporate lawyers.