Bully AKA Canis Canem Edit

[James Pond]

So, im sure your news stations have been giving it a fair bit of bad publicity.  Such is the society we live in.

A game, named Bully.  Media automatically thinks "Bully! You must be going around bullying kids".  I dont think they can get any further from the truth, unsupprisingly.

The game defines the main character as the "Anti-Bully", trying to survive through a tough boarding school by any means, beating people up when needed, etc, getting into trouble.

So why is it getting such bad publicity?

Well, Obviously the "sexual" content (¬_¬) is causing some rifts.  Or rather, its causing Jack Thompson to cause some rifts, ala "OMG NOEZ YOU CAN KISS ANOTHER BOY IN THIZ GAMEZ WE MUST BANNED IT".  Yeah, Because god forbid that gay people should be put in a video game, because THATS where "they can cause the most "damage"".


Its an absaloute piss-take that Thompson is actively campaigning for the game to be taken off the shelves for its gay content (The ability to make out with other boys), and the fact "Its a simulator to train bullies for schools".


Have any of you played the game? 

I bought it myself earlier on (<3 Student Discount), been playing it for a few hours and to be honest, its a very gritty game, but then again, its Rockstar, its what they do best, GTA, State of Emergency.  dont think they have made a game to date that hasnt had some bad press in the past 5 years.  Be it from GTA, Midnight club Racing, and now Bully.

What are your thoughts on the game? Anyone agree with Thompson on the Bully Simulator veiw?

[Jari]

Well... I haven't played it, mostly because I'm not a huge fan of Rockstar's games (which in turn is partly because I hated GTA 1 & 2 with a passion, and partly because I think that Rockstar often seeks notoriety on purpose, to increase sales. That and the fact that being a gangster is not something I dream about. ), so my opinion is purely based on what I've read about it. Joystiq certainly had a very spirited discussion.

Anyway, some thoughts.

• Jack Thompson is an ass, who seeks publicity for himself and his agenda.
• Gay sex (or kissing a boy, as it is with this game) is no worse than straight sex, and certainly much less harmful than beating someone up, or killing them.
• It's been done before. Sims 2, Fable, Fallout 2.
• It's great that gay gamers get to have some fun too. I can imagine how much they enjoy the concept of hero getting the girl.
• Games don't make you gay any more than they make you murderer. Yes, at certain age people imitate behavior of others. I believe that this age is way before they are allowed to play Bully. Besides, if a boy kisses another boy because he saw it in a video game, what's the problem?
• I wouldn't be surprised if Rockstar included the whole scenario just to gain some more free publicity, after all I think that they have done this before as well. But in this case I'm willing to let the end justify the means, and be happy that we got some more sexual equality in games.

I think that I had something else too, but I forgot it. Oh well, maybe I'll remember it later.

[James Pond]

haha, after re reading my post, I went into "Anger Tangent" mode, and went rambling on without making my original point clear.


It was, Do you believe this game should be banned, as it is actively encouraging children to fight?


It has a BBFC 15 rating over here, and I was expecting it to get an 18 myself, but the lack of any form of blood, or death (that I know of) is most likely what bumped it down.


Jari : Some interesting points made, especially about the whole gay equality thing.  I personally feel its rediculous that Thompson is using the fact there is gay content as a point against it.


In other news, I hear Thompson made an ass of himself yet again the other day, tried to sue Acclaim for their new game Mortal Kombat : Anihalation (or something), because Acclaim allegedly used his likelyness in the game without his permission.

He was then informed that he was kreated (See what I did there? >_>) using the Kreate a Kombatant mode.  Ridicule insued ^_^

[Jari]

It was, Do you believe this game should be banned, as it is actively encouraging children to fight?

Nope, it shouldn't be banned. Then again, I don't think that it actively encourages children to fight, anymore than the zillion other games where violence is an option. 

In other news, I hear Thompson made an ass of himself yet again the other day, tried to sue Acclaim for their new game Mortal Kombat : Anihalation (or something), because Acclaim allegedly used his likelyness in the game without his permission.

He was then informed that he was kreated (See what I did there? >_>) using the Kreate a Kombatant mode.  Ridicule insued ^_^

Heh, yeah, the gaming blogs were having a field day with it. And Jack being Jack, didn't really like his newfound fame in video games. User created content, or not.

Well, he sure is funny. One might almost think that he's actually a pro-gamer plant, with the purpose of making the moralist shills look like idiots. Bit like you'd be inclined to think that Fred Phelps is actually a pro-gay plant, meant to undermine the credibility of the anti-gay movement. But sadly... I guess that Fred is for real.


EDIT: On a somewhat related note, rumors of financial... issues with Take-Two have surfaced again. If you don't happen to remember, the last time was some months ago, and even Jack was helping to spread the rumors.

There is something there, though. You don't risk angering NASDAQ without a reason.

[James Pond]

Im not sure what to think of that.

Would they really risk fraud?

[Jari]

All it takes is one bad apple, if that is the decision-making apple.

Anyway, they are talking to NASDAQ, which would imply that they either have a somewhat decent reason for their delay, or they managed to make one up.

One plausible explanation is an investigation in to stock option backdating, like Mad Max on Joystiq commented. It could be the case of few bad apples, assuming of course that illegal backdating took place (since there's also legal kind of backdating, not to mention the possibility that there might have been no backdating at all).

Very much speculation, of course. All we know for sure that they have a problem of some kind that affects that particular form.

[James]

A few points:

Gays aren't a seperate subset of people. The average gay guy doesn't care about getting the girl rather than getting the guy; I mean, I don't receive any sort of sexual gratification from rescuing the princess - it's an objective. It makes very little difference.

That aside, the issue at hand, being the gay content, is moot. The big question should be : who cares?

I played GTA: SA even though the main character is black and I'm white; played Vice City even though the character's Italian and I'm Canadian, so on. I don't think the nationality or sexual preferences of a character would ever deter me from playing a video game (unless of course the game was specifically geared to that, in which case I'd either feel like a douche or gay - that is to say, if the main object of the game was to, I dunno, produce rap albums (actually, I still might play it), or to have gay sex (as an extreme), I'd probably stay away). That said, the main point of the game is to survive. You're thrown into a raw, gritty, and real world and just gotta try to come out on top. Jimmy Hopkins is trying to survive more than anything.

Now, as a bully simulator? Fuck right off. The vast majority of people do not play video games for training; from that, there are three or four 'groups' within gaming... the smallest of which would probably those who might use Bully for training. The rest are either too smart or too responsible to do so.

And, the stuff you do in Bully? It's hardcore, stereotype bully stuff. Stuff that happens extremely rarely (tossing in garbage cans, swirlies, etc); there is of course general fist fighting and so forth, but we see that in tons of other games, so that isn't the issue.

That said, anyone who opposes Bully as it's a gay/bully simulator is simply a douchebag.

Whenever Rockstar gets slammed for a game (like every game except for Table Tennis, which was slammed before it was even announced with a title), there seems to be two sides to the fence with a group in the middle - those who oppose it, those who don't care, and of course, those who end up playing it (but likely don't care about the bad press). I'm sure that for every one or two members that join the first side, a good handful join the middleground and the gaming side of the fence.

I don't see bad press as really being a hinderence.

The only thing worse than getting talked about is not getting talked about, after all.

Or. to quote the shmuck who ripped off Wilde, the only bad publicity is no publicity.

[Jari]

Gays aren't a seperate subset of people. The average gay guy doesn't care about getting the girl rather than getting the guy; I mean, I don't receive any sort of sexual gratification from rescuing the princess - it's an objective. It makes very little difference.

Oh man, I better stop wanking then.

I believe that I didn't suggest someone getting sexual gratification from it, but rather enjoying the game more because they can better identify with the protagonist. You know, this immersion thing?

[James]

Yeah, except the main reason for rescuing the princess is on moral grounds. It doesn't matter what gender the person you're rescuing is, it shouldn't affect your need to rescue them. That is to say, an objective person (a type of person who does not exist) would not distinguish between a man and a woman when it came to rescuing one or the other - personally, I'd sooner rescue a woman than a man, depending of course upon social status, but that's not because I find the woman to be more aesthetically pleasing (which, I do, but video game characters... cough), but because in society the woman is seen as more helpless.

That said, I'm drawing my inferences mostly from one source, who, for whatever my reasons, I see as the "typical gay gamer". He plays all the same kinds of games I do, and doesn't really feel a need to draw any distinctions between rescuing the princess or rescuing the prince.

Now, I'm sure an exception would arise if there were some sort of aesthetic reasoning behind the game's objectives (for example, I don't think he's ever played Playboy: The Mansion, and probably never would as the game is meant to appeal to heterosexual men), but as long as the rescue is being undertaken due to moral principles, he is neutral. That is basically to say, if you had a choice between rescuing a prince or a princess, and you 'liked' both equally (as characters, of course. I can't count the number of times I've neglected to save someone because they just pissed me off or annoyed me. A prime example would be guards in MGS2. Those, who at gunpoint, said "Just try and pull the trigger." would usually end up on the ground, asleep. Those who asked "What are you?", asking an incredibly stupid question, would end up with a hole between their eyes.), odds are that he would pick the same one as you.


That's not to shoot down your point, though. I'm sure there are some gay gamers out there who say "Right on! I get to make out with another boy!", but I don't see it as the norm.

[Jari]

Yeah, except the main reason for rescuing the princess is on moral grounds. It doesn't matter what gender the person you're rescuing is, it shouldn't affect your need to rescue them.

Well, duh. Of course the main reason usually is a moral one. It's just that the main reason might not have that much to do with identifying with the hero.

Let's review an example: Final Fantasy games. Are there any that do not try to build a romance between the hero and some girl? I certainly think that the writers are trying to create reasons other than the standard moral ones for rescuing the girl/princess/helpless female person.

[Izban]

last time i checked most game producing companys where in it for the money so they would be targeting the majority which at the moment just happens to be the the right-handed hetro-male between the ages of 15-30 at the moment so saving the girl is still the thing to do.

look at the new zelda game for teh Wii its a mirrored version of the GC version because the majority of people who will be playing it will be right-handed and people seem to have problems with the whole doing something with onehand only to have there action mirrored on what they are looking at.

think if the majority of gamers were female most lead characters would be female and it would be save the boy or aim to live happliy ever after not blood gore guts to save the lady

[Jari]

I'm not sure if I got your point... you are saying that catering to the taste of the majority brings in more money? Yes, it does. That's kinda obvious.

So?

[James]

While you raise a good point with your example, I still think that the "gay" importance of this game is greatly overhyped. That's not the point, though.


This game is pretty cool. I beat it the other night, and as with pretty much any Rockstar Games game (Bully was actually created in my hometown, which I find somewhat interesting), although I haven't played Table Tennis, sadly, the ending has been very rewarding leaving the player with a sense of accomplishment.

Somewhat of a vague spoiler, but a somewhat interesting point, too:

At the end of the game, the bad guys are punished, the meek inherit the earth/school, you're back on top, and at the very end, you do get the girl.