Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter
User information for Cliff Hicks

Real Name Cliff Hicks   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Devinoch
Email Concealed by request
Description Host of Starlight Society Podcast - http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
Former Product Manager - Zattikka Games.
Former Producer/Lead Designer - Fierce Wombat Games.
Former Associate Producer - Kabam.
Former Customer Service Manager - GameSpot.
Form
Homepage http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
Signed On Aug 21, 2002, 17:08
Total Comments 264 (Amateur)
User ID 13926
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Older >


News Comments > Hitman 2 Backlash

63. A few words... Oct 30, 2002, 13:22 Devinoch
 
Yes, we must all remember the First Rule of Posting: Do NOT Feed The Trolls.

That said, here's my brief two cents on the matter -- games have villians. They are conflict-based entertainment with both a protagonist and an antagonist. Them's the breaks. Now, I am speaking from the point of someone else who hasn't played Hitman 2 (it's in the apartment, but I've been busy playing other games), but I find it highly unlikely that the team designed the game with racial insensativity in mind. On top of that, the game is about bad people doing bad things.

Let's look at the villians of the last twenty years of entertainment, shall we? You've got: Germans, Nazis (not always the same thing, mind you), Russians, Columbians, the British, Eastern Europeaners (as a whole), Middle/South Americans (as a whole), Africans (as a whole), Asians (as a whole), the Chinese, the Japanese ... this list goes on and on and on and on.

Is a game where you go and kill a Columbian drug lord an anti-Columbian game? No. You're a person with a mission. If there is a small group of radical terrorists, does it matter what nationality they are? Not particularly.

On top of all of this, let's stress that Hitman 2 is an assassination game. This means you're a professional killer for hire. So, in all actuality, you go where the money is. You're paid to do a job and you do it. You don't have to condone or even agree with what you're doing -- you're doing it for the money. It's aimed at Mature audiences, who are (supposedly) much more trained to discern between fact and fiction.


I read the petition. Its main objection is that a "holy place" is being used in a game of violence, and that they are inferring that there is an anti-Sikh sentiment going with it. By their line of arguing, there should be no churches of any kind in any game ever again, from the Vatican (which has been depicted in at least a couple of games) down to the local clergyhouse. Their requests are nothing short of ludicrous. Pull the game from all store shelves and then put a new version of the game out? Not going to happen. The website is something that could be changed, but quite frankly, this is overreaction at its finest.

I'm partially of Germanic heritage, and were I so inclined, I could probably go and raise a big fuss about how I was tired of the German people being represented in games by things like Saving Private Ryan, Medal of Honor, Castle Wolfenstein and the like. But I don't.

Games don't generally incite people to violence, racial or otherwise. In fact, since the release of Grand Theft Auto 3, I believe the national crime rate is actually on the decline (although I haven't looked lately).

I understand these people are worried about their portrayal, but I would counter that they should be looking for a positive image to counter the negative, rather than looking to erase the negative. Villians in games/movies/TV/entertainment are individuals. If they all start appearing as the same person or same kind of person, then you have a trend and you can start pointing fingers. But to say an isolated game may "endanger innocent Sikhs all over the world" is not only a stretch of the imagination, it's a denial of plausability.

Personally, I'd like to see people start supporting the freedom of speech we've worked so hard to keep, rather than requesting we pitch it away on a dime's notice because they don't agree with something they've heard. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it's dangerous.

Remember that, boys and girls.

~d.

 



Cliff "Devinoch" Hicks
Host of the Starlight Society Podcast
http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sam & Max Hit The Road Again

15. Welcome back old friends... Aug 27, 2002, 20:33 Devinoch
 
Good ta see ya again...

 



Cliff "Devinoch" Hicks
Host of the Starlight Society Podcast
http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Early Morning Q&As

4. Re: Babes Aug 26, 2002, 16:02 Devinoch
 
Is it any wonder why people refuse to take gaming serious as an artform, when people continue to make things like ... this?

 



Cliff "Devinoch" Hicks
Host of the Starlight Society Podcast
http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > id Interview

26. Re: Drops Aug 23, 2002, 14:33 Devinoch
 
I have to confess, I have my reservations about the whole new direction they're taking -- I can understand the basic concepts of why they're doing what they're doing, but I can't seem to get myself to agree with it.

Were they going for a more "team-based" approach, then I could sort of understand why they didn't want new players to join in after the game has started, and they could simply set up a "resume" function so the player respawned in the game... but they aren't.

I dunno... it just doesn't seem like a wise set of decisions, IMHO. I think a lot of FPS fans will be rather upset by it.

 



Cliff "Devinoch" Hicks
Host of the Starlight Society Podcast
http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
264 Comments. 14 pages. Viewing page 14.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Older >