Random Gaming Thoughts

[Erik_Twice]

You're free to speak as long as you can deal with the consequences of dissenting opinion.

Don't you think there's a bit of a contradiction between "free to speak" and "someone will break your legs"? Like, a little bit?

Next time you'll tell me North Korea is a democracy because they have elections.

The proper comparison would be that you're free to strike as long as you're prepared to be fired.

There's a long history of workers getting beat up or killed for striking so both seem proper comparisons to me. Non-striking workers getting beat up by strikers would also be a good comparison.

[Luke]

Streets of Rage > Streets of Rage 2.

Maybe it is because I grew up with Streets of Rage on the Sega CD, but the sequel was basically the same game but more cartoonish...or cartoony.

In SOR2 the only difference I find is that the characters are a bit goofier looking and the music isn't as good.

This might belong in the "Unpopular" thread, but as far as an arcade style game I don't know why people like SOR2. Was the rollerblade dude that cool?

[Damm64]

Decided to put my games on two piles "beated" and "unbeated" now i see that more than half of my ps3 games need to be played. I will try to make a rule of "if i beat a game i can buy another one later this year" but i know i will not do it

[marurun]

He has every right to say it, but he should be prepared for the ramifications of his actions.

That line of thinking is a justification for blackmail, pure and simple. If you are being threatened with firings, public humillations or violence you do not have free speech in any meaningful sense.

It's like arguing you are free to strike as long as you prepare yourself to be beaten up, c'mon.

You have to keep in mind that freedom of speech as it arose in the US (which is considered the starting model for freedom of speech policy, for good or ill [obviously, there are earlier precedents and examples upon which the US model was built]) was a means of allowing unfettered criticism of the government. Government was seen as a necessity, but also a potential oppressor that must be limited. By protecting the rights of the public to speak openly without fear of government reprisal it was hoped that the government would be held in check as it couldn't censor or hide complaints against its operation or ideas for its reform. It is fundamentally a political right.

Additionally, the reason there's no such thing as speech without consequences or constraints is that we would somehow have to restrain people from having a reaction to speech, which is not only pointless but impossible. It's also inherently contradictory.

I would like to add that I do not support "free speech" in on-line gaming, because the distance, anonymity, and oppositional/competitive nature of on-line play seems to bring out the worst in many people. As on-line play is a curated environment, I support speech restrictions with the goal of keeping on-line play welcoming and friendly.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Streets of Rage > Streets of Rage 2.

Maybe it is because I grew up with Streets of Rage on the Sega CD, but the sequel was basically the same game but more cartoonish...or cartoony.

In SOR2 the only difference I find is that the characters are a bit goofier looking and the music isn't as good.

This might belong in the "Unpopular" thread, but as far as an arcade style game I don't know why people like SOR2. Was the rollerblade dude that cool?

Luke, I love you and I'm not afraid to say it! I agree 100% and have been saying so for years.

Although one correction, Rollerblades are ALWAYS cool!

[Erik_Twice]

Additionally, the reason there's no such thing as speech without consequences or constraints is that we would somehow have to restrain people from having a reaction to speech, which is not only pointless but impossible.

No right is without constrains. I just don't think that having your legs broken, getting fired or publicy humiliated are what any reasonable person would consider acceptable constrains of speech. Period.

Let's call them for what they are and not brush them as inevitable and difuse "consequences"

[BogusMeatFactory]

I would like to add that I do not support "free speech" in on-line gaming, because the distance, anonymity, and oppositional/competitive nature of on-line play seems to bring out the worst in many people. As on-line play is a curated environment, I support speech restrictions with the goal of keeping on-line play welcoming and friendly.

Oh absolutely! There should honestly be a code of conduct for on-line play, but that should be left to the developer to set. They can or can't, but I for one, would definitely play more on-line games if I knew the developers were making sure people weren't abusive online.

No right is without constrains. I just don't think that having your legs broken, getting fired or publicy humiliated are what any reasonable person would consider acceptable constrains of speech. Period.

Let's call them for what they are and not brush them as inevitable and difuse "consequences"

Here is the thing though, say you got your legs broken for a statement, you have the right to prosecute that person for their reaction. There are repercussions for every action. But, seriously, if someone says, "I am going to bomb my job and kill everyone here," they should be fired for their statements. Don't know how that isn't clear enough?

[Gunstar Green]

I think Streets of Rage 2 is the better game in most ways that matter but the original does have this excellent, gritty atmosphere that the sequels failed to re-capture.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Additionally, the reason there's no such thing as speech without consequences or constraints is that we would somehow have to restrain people from having a reaction to speech, which is not only pointless but impossible.

No right is without constrains. I just don't think that having your legs broken, getting fired or publicy humiliated are what any reasonable person would consider acceptable constrains of speech. Period.

Let's call them for what they are and not brush them as inevitable and difuse "consequences"

Well, if your legs were broken because of it, you could get lots of legal action in your favor. All that other stuff? That is how it should be.
-----
Ugh, the more I read, the more PS3 games I want. I'm already at about 10, so my shelf is gonna get packed.

[Erik_Twice]

Here is the thing though, say you got your legs broken for a statement, you have the right to prosecute that person for their reaction. There are repercussions for every action.

Why are you equating a fair accussation of assault with the act of assault itself? The "consequences" or "repercussions" are not comparable nor equally justificable.

You are framing the whole discussion on what the speaker should or should not say as if the biker were not the guy responsable for gravely assaulting a person. It's victim-blaming, dude, c'mon.

But, seriously, if someone says, "I am going to bomb my job and kill everyone here," they should be fired for their statements. Don't know how that isn't clear enough?

Nobody has argued otherwise