C&C Generals

[Windfire]

So, what is the consensus on this game? From what I've read it seems pretty darn hot.

I'm of the old school (?), loving some of the older RTS games more than some of the newer ones: Total Annihilation was my favorite with AOE2 not too far behind.

Anyone have any thoughts on this game?

[pcchen]

I am not a hardcore RTS fan, but this is a game that I can play for long time.

Its economy is like a mix of traditional style (limited and fixed amount) and TA style (continuously generating). The standard way of getting money is from some dump yard, which amount is fixed. On the other hand, there are some other way to get money, such as taking over an oil well, which makes money continuously. I think this is quite interesting.

I just played some single player mission, so I can't say much about unit balance. However, most reviews are quite positive about this. I can find counter attack for most type of combination of forces. So I guess it is quite balanced :)

About graphics, I think it has the best graphics of all RTS games I've played (hint: not many :P). Its sound is also good, but not outstanding. It is also quite stable, it didn't crash on my computer (yet).

Now about the bad side. It certainly is a demanding game, regarding to hardwares. It does not have too much storyline in its single player missions, that's a pity. And its unit control can be a bit messy sometimes.

[Silent_One]

I, too, am not a RTS gamer, but this game has me iintrigued. The graphics are great, the action fast paced. Although I've just started playing so far I'm impressed. Now if I could only read the tiny print in the manual!

[Windfire]

Thanks for views. I've looked for reviews at some of game sights I go to (Avault, etc.) with no luck. I'll do some google searches. :)

[bystander]

Windfire have you tried using Game Rankings? (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/22133.asp)

C&C Generals seems to have a healthy average score so far on Game Rankings, although the recent 6/10 score by Eurogamer is certain to make some impact. But all in all I'm fairly interested in C&C Generals, but I'm a bit concerned about the length of the single player campaign.

[Windfire]

Well, I picked it up last night for $39 at BestBuy.

I've completed a half dozen of the US missions. Here are my first impressions.

Graphics - Certainly a step up (or better) than any other RTS game I've played. I'm impressed. I run at 1280x960 and everything runs silky smooth (P4 2GHz, TI4400, 512MB PC800).

Sound / Music - Classic C&C. Does the job nicely.

Controls - They work, and as I overcome the learning curve it works better and better. I was somewhat suprised there doesn't seem to be a way to customize controls!

Game play - The game plays very nicely. With the exception of making control mistakes (for some reason i'm used to holding Ctrl-click to select a unit which causes others to shoot at it! :(). Another thing I'm not sure I like is the auto-AI that occurs at times for my side--you know, where air strikes and the like are called.

Now, to even more personal thoughts...

I guess I just liked Total Annihilation's style too much, but I'm wanting to build a base up (buildings, defenses, etc.) from teh ground-up for missions. This allows me to choose the location and such. So far I haven't had much opportunity to use this approach--the camp-ground is already chosen.

Also, I liked having to hunt for the enemy and figure out the bounds of their control. Generals kind of makes the game feel more linear in that my exact objectives and where I need to go is dictated.

However, I'm still pretty darn happy with the game. Pretty cool. I sure hope a bunch of good maps are developed for multi-player. In TA I enjoyed creating maps where 2-3 humans could combat 4-5 computer players (cooperatively) with the odds stacked in the computers favore. Made for a fun game.

I like this game better than I did Warcaft3, that is for sure.

[bystander]

There's one thing I'd like to know, is if C &C Generals has a skirmish mode and if it is any good at all...

[Luminescent]

What DX9 features does the game utilize? Any vertex/pixel shaders, or 128-bit color?

[horvendile]

What DX9 features does the game utilize? Any vertex/pixel shaders, or 128-bit color?

Er... DX9? Have I missed something?

[Goragoth]

Personally I love the game. Seems a bit slow after playing a lot of fast paced Warcraft3 but after getting used to it the pacing actually feels right. The game runs a bit slowely on my aging comp (pIII-866, Ti4200) but I guess that's to be expected (not too bad anyways since its RTS). Some of the 3d shadows look real nice and I'm amazed at some of the cutscenes done with the game engine (something I was scepitcal about at first since it breaks the tradition of big movies in C&C games). After seeing what they have done with those cut scenes I would agree that it was a good choice though (although some video footage for briefings might be nice and would have solidified the storylines but I'm guessing they were on a limited budget).

As for gameplay, I've been a big fan of the C&C series since I played the three demo missions of the first game when it was released (that's a while back now) and I can say that I'm not dissapointed. They have changed the style significantly: resource gathering as noted by a previous poster, building is done by units (*craft styles) and unit building is done from the actual buildings (also *craft styles). Overall I think these changes are for the better and I applaud the makers for having the courage to implement these changes in a C&C game rather than sticking with the old UI. The genral rank thing is also a nice touch.

IMO the only really bad point of the game is shortness of the campaigns and perhaps the storyline (which was always a strong point of the C&C games). Overall a nice game that is close to perfect except for the couple of points I mentioned.

If my stance on the In Game Cutscence vs. FMV is not clear here is exactly what I think: Briefings should be FMV very much like the other C&C games but anything that is supposed to be battle footage/setting the scene (which was also FMV in previous C&C games) should be done in the game engine. The engine is able to do some impressive stuff but it can't give you that personal, this-stuff-is-happening feeling that FMV briefings can. This is all IMO and perhaps not all that important. Just my impressions.

[Goragoth]

As to the DX9 post: C&C Generals does NOT use DirectX9. No game currently uses DX9, its wayyyyy to new. AFAIK Generals is DX8.1 and uses some pixel/vertex shaders. From the Shaders.big file I can see it uses the following shaders:
* invmonochrome.ps
* monochrome.ps
* motionblur.ps
* motionblur.vs
* roadnoise2.ps
* terrain.ps
* terrainnoise.ps
* terrainnoise2.ps
* wave.ps
* wave.vs
I don't know what version these are but I would bet they are just simple ps1.1 and vs1.1 shaders. There's nothing super-complex here, possibly the most noticeable in-game of these are the wave shaders for the water.

[Nick[FM]]

I love the game too, but 1 thing is still unclear for me. Why did they remove the PS water? :cry:

Shipping version:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/pc/generals/gen_screen005.jpg

Shot before the release:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/str/ccg/ccg_screen003.jpg

Some user in our forums have found out that if you edit the gamedata.ini file, and change the "WaterType = 0 " setting from 0 to 2, it draws PS water, but not correctly. Could anyone test this? I am at home, and the game is at work! :D

[Goragoth]

I didn't know about the pixel shaded water effects. Looks kind of cool. I would like to try it out, thing is I can't find a gamedata.ini file anywhere. There is a options.ini file but that has nothing to do with water in it and adding "WaterType = 0" doesn't change anything. There is a INI.big file in the generals dir but I have no idea how to open it (at ~7MB I'm not gonna open it in notepad as I did with the shaders.big file). A quick google did not turn up any .big file viewers either. Point is, if you know how to enable the cool water (even if its buggy) please let me know 'cause I want to try it out 8)

[Nick[FM]]

Point is, if you know how to enable the cool water (even if its buggy) please let me know 'cause I want to try it out 8)
Here's what I found:

1. Download this .big extractor/viewer: http://www.genedit2k.com/downloads/utilities/xucr.zip
2. Extract the INI.big file
3. Look for the GameData.ini file
4. Right click on it, and copy the GameData.ini file to your "generals/Data/INI" folder (you need to create the INI folder yourself).
5. Open the GameData.ini file into notepad/wordpad, and start testing! :wink: Remember to save it, and have a backup, just in case..

From within that ini file, you should be able to get the water running, though buggy..

*edit: I found these parameters to be very interesting: "UseFPSLimit = Yes", "FramesPerSecondLimit = 30" and "ChipsetType = 0". I'll try to fiddle around a bit myself now.. :) Sad thing is that you can "cheat" by editing these files. Unless the server checks all player's .ini files, which I doubt it does. :( You can edit stuff like "BaseRegenHealthPercentPerSecond = 0.3% ;You get this % of max health back per second from auto base". Kinda sucks if it works..

[Colourless]

]Sad thing is that you can "cheat" by editing these files. Unless the server checks all player's .ini files, which I doubt it does. :( You can edit stuff like "BaseRegenHealthPercentPerSecond = 0.3% ;You get this % of max health back per second from auto base". Kinda sucks if it works..

Red Alert would use in built defaults if your inis were modified.

Tiberian Sun wouldn't allow you to connect if your inis were modified (which you did have to extract yourself). However, if everyones inis were the same you could connect. I assume that Red Alert 2 acts the same as Tiberian Sun since they use the same engine.

I would then assume that Generals would check the inis as well.

[Goragoth]

Thanks worm, that worked like a charm. Now I will go and have a fiddle with all the settings and see if I can discover anything else interesting... :)

[Luminescent]

Does the PS shaded water work after modifying the ini?

[Nick[FM]]

Does the PS shaded water work after modifying the ini?
At least it didn't work for me. 0 is default, 1 did no changes, 2 made all shadows look odd and I saw water all over the maps, and 3 did nothing. :(

I tried this on a R9700Pro with Cat 3.1. If anyone finds out how to enable them on any cards, please let us know!

[BoddoZerg]

Starcraft > CnC:G lolz

[Thowllly]

]I love the game too, but 1 thing is still unclear for me. Why did they remove the PS water? :cry:

Shipping version:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/pc/generals/gen_screen005.jpg

Shot before the release:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/str/ccg/ccg_screen003.jpg

The 'shipping version' image is still using PS. Try running it on a dx7 card, and you get a single big ugly opaque texture being scrolled over the water surface.

[Trawler]

The 'shipping version' image is still using PS. Try running it on a dx7 card, and you get a single big ugly opaque texture being scrolled over the water surface.

Hmm, the shipping version's water does look like pants compared to those pre-release screenshots though. Wonder why they'd remove reflections from the shader. Performance?

[Luminescent]

I guess the fact that there is a wave effect for the water indicates that even the new water is using pixel shaders. If the water looks different on DX7 hardware, this may be the case.

[Nick[FM]]

I guess the fact that there is a wave effect for the water indicates that even the new water is using pixel shaders. If the water looks different on DX7 hardware, this may be the case.
Might be... But still, why no reflections at all? :? Even as an options, or something. Damn!

[Luminescent]

From the looks of it (still haven't purchased the game), I prefer the looks of the reflective water. I wonder why they scrapped it.

The game does support hardware T&L/VS, right?

[Goragoth]

I have tried the reflective water and it is as broken as a previous poster mentioned, water all over the place and the shadows are broken and its basically a big ugly mess (Ti4200, det 41.09). My guess is that some other option(s) need to be changed to make it work more or less.

Why didn't they include it? My guesses are:
1) It was supposed to be an option but it was still buggy and didn't work right (it might have looked arse in the damn-bursting scences for example).
2) Someone decided that reflective water would look out of place because in a way it does. It has the same problem as the water in Morrowind. Everything else is obviously a painted texture and then there is this realistic looking water in the middle of it. Looks nice initially but once the novelty wears off you are left with something that doesn't really feel right IMO.
3) The whole thing was just a programmer trying some stuff out and was never planned in the first place and it just wasn't finished on time so it wasn't included.

Number 1 seems the most likely though. Anybody know what actually did happen?

[Nick[FM]]

Why didn't they include it? My guesses are:
1) It was supposed to be an option but it was still buggy and didn't work right (it might have looked arse in the damn-bursting scences for example).
2) Someone decided that reflective water would look out of place because in a way it does. It has the same problem as the water in Morrowind. Everything else is obviously a painted texture and then there is this realistic looking water in the middle of it. Looks nice initially but once the novelty wears off you are left with something that doesn't really feel right IMO.
3) The whole thing was just a programmer trying some stuff out and was never planned in the first place and it just wasn't finished on time so it wasn't included.

Number 1 seems the most likely though. Anybody know what actually did happen?
Someone had posted over at our forums that he recalled reading somewhere that the water effect is a "NV30 only" effect only.. :roll: I have no idea if that it true or not, but wouldn't surprise me at all. After all, C&C: Generals is listed under the "NV30 look" pages @ NVIDIA:

http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=game_generals

*edit: I just took a look at the shots @ NVIDIA, and they lack the reflective water too.. :? Here's a shot:

http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/3652/SUPP/large01.jpg

This is very strange.. Perhaps the reflection didn't work as they wanted, and therefore, well, removed it? Pitty..

[Luminescent]

The water reminds me of the water in Shenmue 2 for Xbox. It seems to be using some sort of normal/bump map, however there is no reflectivity. I guess it would look out-of-place with reflectivity (although I would still prefer it more).

On another note, doesn't that Nvidia screen say "128-bit color", meaning the game supports 128-bit fp precision for the color operations? Wouldn't this mean that 9500/9700 owners get some extra dynamic IQ?

[Crusher]

I just bought it. I have to say I'm impressed. The minimum requirements are a P3 800 and a 32MB GeForce 2 GTS or Radeon 7500. I've got a Celeron 850 and a 32MB GeForce 2 GTS, and the game was running fine at 1024x768 with high detail settings. No pixel shaded water of course, but it still looks great. I was expecting to have to turn it down to 800x600 low detail to get playable performance. And to my suprise, the installer program worked flawlessly (unlike some things I've downloaded recently...) ;)

And yes, there's a single player skirmish mode. I didn't play around with the difficulty settings too much, but once I figured out how to play and what my different units could do, I beat the computer pretty easily (USA vs. USA). I'm you can make it harder than that game was.

[Gollum]

Wow, this must be the first game in ages where it didn't surprise nor upset me when I learned that it was going on the index here in Germany (meaning its purchase is restricted to grown ups and no advertising is allowed). Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of this method of censorship! I do however believe that until there are reliable means to restrict access to certain media to specific age groups it kind of serves a (however questionable) purpose. Wether this works or not is a different story.

From what I've played C&C:G is actually one of the better C&C games in quite some time, the graphics are awesome and the gameplay well balanced (yet at times too linear, restrictive and unchallenging). Unfortunatelly it crosses the border into very bad taste more often that not though. IMO using elements such as suicide bombers, car bombs, anthrax, chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to name just a few as parts of its core gameplay is extremely nonsensitive, especially in light of the past few years and most importantly current events. Also is all the massive targeting of covilian population and structures really neccessary (which is one of the main reasons for the decision to put it on the index I believe - its not the killing in itself, its the context)? Yeah its "fictional" warfare, but its ties to reality are extremely close this time around, not only in weapons but also in political parties involved.

Just to give one example out of many. I'm used to quite a lot of gore, violence and other questionable content over my decades of being a gamer, but even I had to swallow hard at the end of the training mission already. Blowing the chemical facility up and thereby killing every soldier, friend or enemy in a hundred meter proximity certainly left a bitter taste in my mouth. I don't mean to preach, but wouldn't it have sufficed to merely secure the friggin compound? Satire? Dunno, could be, felt more like bad taste to me though.

To sum it up, IMO this is one game that certainly doesn't belong into the hands of teens or children. Other than that I'm fine with it, although I personally continue to prefer playing WC3 and AoM instead...

[Crusher]

Uh, ok... I see no problem with having terrorists as bad guys (and they are very clearly presented as the bad guys in the game). They're more representative of bad guys than the Russians are right now. In fact, I think they even went out of their way to make China look respectable. And if you're going to have terrorist bad guys, you kind of need to give them terrorist-style weapons, which happens to include suicide bombers, car bombs, chemical and biological weapons. Would you rather remove all traces of terrorism from media and entertainment, and try to pretend it never existed?

Yeah its "fictional" warfare, but its ties to reality are extremely close this time around, not only in weapons but also in political parties involved.

No offense, but I'm getting sick of this over-sensitivity that's been around the last couple of years. Films getting delayed because of "respect" for families of 9/11 victims, people suing each other for being "insensitive" over the issue, peace lovers so afraid of war they'll attack anything that has anything to do with violence. Not trying to lump you into the stereotype, just pointing out some of your statements resemble that line of reasoning. I don't remember anyone complaining about the nuclear missles in Red Alert, nor the fact that it was the U.S. vs. Russia. Certainly not to the point that I've heard people complaining about Generals. Fact is these types of games have been around for a long time, and Generals is no worse than any of the rest. The only thing that has changed, is a vocal minority of the world now wants to condemn anything related to terrorism, regardless of what it is or how it's used. We probably won't see many movies in the next 4 years that have anything to do with hijacking airplanes, blowing up civilian buildings, or things of that nature. I personally feel the loss our society will suffer from the restrictions placed on artistic freedom because of these feelings will be much worse than any offense someone might take just because a scene in a movie might bear a slight resemblance to the twin towers incident.

As for goriness, I don't recall seeing any blood splattered across my screen, or any decapitated heads on sticks, or anything that even resembles gore. Sure it's got biological and chemical weapons, suicide bombers, and there's some collateral damage. Would you expect anything less from a game based on real life militaries and terrorists? It's not as if they're portraying it as a good thing; it's simply a part of war. Teenagers hear about suicide bombing on the news every week. I think giving them the opportuinity to actively rebel against it in a video game is a pretty non-violent way to release any anger they feel about it.

You can't have realism in games without using realistic parts of life. The only alternative is to have nothing but fantasy games.

[Gollum]

Uh, ok... I see no problem with having terrorists as bad guys (and they are very clearly presented as the bad guys in the game). They're more representative of bad guys than the Russians are right now.
Uhm, from what I can see over here on CNN, CNBC etc. EA had probably better used Germans and French as the bad guys, eh? Picking on us seems quite a popular sport on the US networks these days, making fun of us is also a lot easier than making fun of terrorists. No sir, that'd be bad taste! ;)

Back on topic, I have no problem that terrorists are the bad guys, they are! But I do think that in this particular case its a borderline decision to make them a playable faction, or rather specifically the way they are played! You seriously want to compare playing Russia in Red Alert to playing a bunch of terrorists? You sense of reality must be very skewed here my friend! Terrorists are criminals and organizations of the worst sort, the plague of our time. The Russians were ideological and political opponents during the cold war, hardly comparable! That is unless you're really still a believer of all the anti-red propaganda from the McCarthy period.

And if you're going to have terrorist bad guys, you kind of need to give them terrorist-style weapons, which happens to include suicide bombers, car bombs, chemical and biological weapons. Would you rather remove all traces of terrorism from media and entertainment, and try to pretend it never existed?
Serious question: what would you think if they had included kidnapped 747s that are used to fly suicide attacks against enemy and civilian structures? They'd certainly make sense as a super weapon. Would you applaud the addition, since you seem to think all kinds of moral and ethic values should be ignored in a war game, right along with all concerns that some people might feel offended by it? Ever considered some people might actually have a right to feel offended, like the families of victims of such horrible terroristic acts? Well, maybe they'll put 747s and the twin towers in the add-on for you...

I hardly want to "remove all traces of terrorism from media", no clue how you got that idea, the claim is rediculous. As for entertainment, it has to be done carefully and respectfully! There is such a thing as human dignity you know. Even you must agree, that there's a difference between hearing a report of a suicide bombing in Israel on TV and commiting such a bombing yourself, even if its only in a game. Every time I see a suicide bomber exploding and killing civilians in that game I have to think about the people who have to actually LIVE with this kind of terror every day of their lives, RIGHT NOW! It would probably be different if those were things of the past, but the current reality is horrible enough already.

How do you think US soldiers suring the Vietnam war would have felt if their loved ones at home had played video games in which they got killed at the same time? Same goes for WW I and WW II, we can only deal with those historic events in games now as they are a thing of the past. We have had time to learn about and from them, come to accept them and moved on. It took decades to digest the horror of those wars, before we could deal with them in the media, let alone in an entertainment kidn of way. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have a feeling this world has yet "moved on" from terrorism, quite the opposite in fact.

I don't say terrorism should be a taboo, actually games like CS demonstrate very well that one can deal with the issue without all the bitterness and foul taste that comes with some aspects of C&C:G.

As for goriness, I don't recall seeing any blood splattered across my screen, or any decapitated heads on sticks, or anything that even resembles gore.
When I mentioned gore I was referring to the exact point that C&C:G was put in the index for other reasons! The games that are often talked negatively about or indexed usually depict excessive violence (like SoF), so people have come to expect violence to be the sole reason for these decisions, which is often wrong. It depends on the context, thus C&C:G got indexed despite not being a gory kind of game.

No offense, but I'm getting sick of this over-sensitivity that's been around the last couple of years. Films getting delayed because of "respect" for families of 9/11 victims, people suing each other for being "insensitive" over the issue, peace lovers so afraid of war they'll attack anything that has anything to do with violence. Not trying to lump you into the stereotype, just pointing out some of your statements resemble that line of reasoning.
Thanks for not lumping. See, I am a very non-violent person myself. I don't believe in it, never have and probably never will. I haven't been involved in a fist-fight or anything like it in the entire 25 years of my life, I prefer to settle differences through dialogue. That said, I do realize however that there were, are and always will be situations where issues cannot be resolved peacefully. I also realize that the majority of the population of this planet hasn't been given the same chances many of us have, namely getting to grow up in relatively wealthy and secure countries, or in a neighbourhood with low crime rates and little social conflict. I accept violence as a part of human existence, even thogh I myself have never had to resort to nor experience it (that doesn't mean I've had an easy life, I've had my fair share of other tragedies to make it a rough ride). I am aware we will never "get rid of it", that's way too Gene Roddenberry for my tastes... ;)

I'm sure that action and to a certain degree violence and gore too, are a valid form of entertainment. Countless TV shows, movies and games have proven that for decades. I believe there is a line though! That line differs from individual to individual and country to country. Generally (not trying to lump you into the stereotype) many citizens of the US of A have a very high tolerance for violence and blood, whereas the slightest hint of the nipple of a female breast makes them cry in outrage (warning exaggeration ;) ), whereas many people in Europe are used to all sorts of nudity and sex but have to puke faster as the violence and gore levels turn up. What I'm trying to say is, it all comes down to differences in cultural background, bringing up, education, family ties and personal tastes, amongst many other things.

The point is, what might me fine for you might be offensive to others. I am an opponent of censorship, but support the idea that certain forms of media content (especially the more excessive sex and violence get) should be handled with care and should be restricted to specific age groups. Now in theory any grown up should be able to deal with the differentiation of reality and media. Children and youths are much more volatile however. Unfortunatelly we can't trust the parents to take care of what a kid should or not get his hands on as they too often don't care or just don't have a clue, which is where the government ought to step in in a regulatory way.

Its a fine line we're walking here, between reality, fantasy and what exactly is entertainment. IMO we have to respect other poeple's concerns and emotions, or everything we think our society stands for has become meaningless. Oh boy, this babbling of mine has already gone on far too long, sorry for that!

[vrecan]

to me thats the whole reason for parents they are suppose to decide what is ok and not ok for their childeren not some goverment. I have no problem with the idea of using suicide 747's as a weapon in a game as long as it has a use and in the right context... personally I find all this crap about 9/11 way to overblown especially the rejects that boycoted the twin towers because of the refrences to "9/11" I have no problems if doesn't want their children to see certain things. I just have a problem with it when it starts to effect me and my family.

[Gollum]

to me thats the whole reason for parents they are suppose to decide what is ok and not ok for their childeren not some goverment.
First of all please remember, I am not talkign about censorship, merely about regulatory intervention. More specifically the restriction of access to specific media content depending on age.

As for your statement, don't you mean "your" government instead of "some"? After all you trust this government when it comes to decide who to go to war with and who not, but you don't trust them to have some control over what forms of media should be restricted? Am I the only one who sees a flaw in that thought pattern? BTW, what's your opinion on child pornography, snuff videos, necrophilia or beastiality - should that too be left to the parents to control wether children get their hands on that material? Should you be able to purchase all of this at the corner store next to Mickey Mouse, TV Guide and MAD magazine at any age?

Actually, I can understand your position, just pointing out the flaws in your argument. I think its a little fatuous to assme that it would work if sole control over this matter rested within the parents hands. I would be all for it, but it would only work if you could somehow guarantee that the vast majority of parents (actually not just parents, all people) out there are truly responsible persons who take constant good care of their children, take an active interest in their kid's daily activities, viewing and gaming habits and have at least some form of clue when it comes e.g. to computers. I think you should now begin to see the problem with this picture perfect world, its not even close to reaility! Or do I have to point you towards figures of child abuse or neglect; tell you about how many parents just don't care or don't have time to show any interest in their children's life because they have enough trouble in their own or plain don't care; kids basically raising themselves because both parents have to work full time to pay for their bills; single parents that have to work, run a household and raise a child on their own; parents who don't have a clue that their kids are drug addicts, even though they are loving and caring - I could go on and on about this. There is just no way that parents alone can control what their kids get access to and what not, there's too many outside sources, too many uncertainities and variables. As long as you don't want to suggest a 18 year, 24/7 curfew I don't see how this is supposed to work. Of course goverment regulation doesn't solve the problems entirely, but it sure makes a parents job a hell of a lot easier and there's still more than enough work left for them to do.

personally I find all this crap about 9/11 way to overblown especially the rejects that boycoted the twin towers because of the refrences to "9/11"
I think that petition was supposed to be a joke, although a very bad one. Yeah I think sensitivity about 9/11 is overblown too, especially since there are way worse things happeneing everyday elsewhere in the world. You should note though, that AFIK none of these delayed movies or other decisions made out of sensitivity for 9/11 were actually because of the govemnent. Those were all decisions made by private entities out of respect and various other reasons.

As for the example of suicide 747's in C&C:G, if they decide to have dirty playing terrorists in their game as a playable faction then IMO they should go all the way and include those too, it'd be only fair. Like I also said, as a unit it would make sense. So I'm curious as to why they didn't include it, probably because then maybe even part of the american audience would have found more reasons for objection in the game's content (those over-sensitive wussies, pah), whereas right now its mostly outside the US that critical voices about the game are heard. Actually the real reason probably is that if they had included 747's, you could've bet your house and savings that the families of the 9/11 victims would have sued EA's ass...

[Crusher]

I know your post wasn't directed to me, but I'm going to respond anyway :)

As for your statement, don't you mean "your" government instead of "some"? After all you trust this government when it comes to decide who to go to war with and who not, but you don't trust them to have some control over what forms of media should be restricted?

Our government does restrict media by age groups. That's why we have R and NC-17 rated movies, and it's illegal to allow a minor into them without parental consent/supervision. That's also why we have Teen and Mature ratings on video games, and some stores won't let anyone under 18 buy Mature rated games. It's also why we have that nice little "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" sticker on 90% of the music albums. There have also been times that the public and government have pressured the music and film industries into censorship without explicitly making a law against what they want censored. I'm not a big fan of any of it.

BTW, what's your opinion on child pornography, snuff videos, necrophilia or beastiality - should that too be left to the parents to control wether children get their hands on that material? Should you be able to purchase all of this at the corner store next to Mickey Mouse, TV Guide and MAD magazine at any age?

Child pornography, murder, necrophilia, beastiality, and all forms of media recordings of them are illegal, and I have no problem with that. The reason I have no problem with that is because they infringe on the rights of other humans and animals, and anyone who infringes on the rights of others loses their right to free speech while doing so. If you want to talk about normal pornography, however, that's a different story. There wasn't a guy in my class in high school that didn't have a porn mag stashed someplace, and as far as I know none of them have turned into rapists and murderers because of it. I see no reason to have laws restricting access to porn to adults when sexual desires begin at a much earlier age. I have no problem letting parents decide if their kid can buy a Playboy at 14.

I think its a little fatuous to assme that it would work if sole control over this matter rested within the parents hands. I would be all for it, but it would only work if you could somehow guarantee that the vast majority of parents (actually not just parents, all people) out there are truly responsible persons who take constant good care of their children, take an active interest in their kid's daily activities, viewing and gaming habits and have at least some form of clue when it comes e.g. to computers.

I think the hope is that pusing this responsibility onto the parents instead of the government would encourage that kind of involvement in their children's lives. This is what parent should be doing, if they want to raise their kids right. If they fail to do this, it's not the government's fault, and it's not society's fault.

I think you should now begin to see the problem with this picture perfect world, its not even close to reaility! Or do I have to point you towards figures of child abuse or neglect; tell you about how many parents just don't care or don't have time to show any interest in their children's life because they have enough trouble in their own or plain don't care; kids basically raising themselves because both parents have to work full time to pay for their bills; single parents that have to work, run a household and raise a child on their own; parents who don't have a clue that their kids are drug addicts, even though they are loving and caring - I could go on and on about this. There is just no way that parents alone can control what their kids get access to and what not, there's too many outside sources, too many uncertainities and variables. As long as you don't want to suggest a 18 year, 24/7 curfew I don't see how this is supposed to work. Of course goverment regulation doesn't solve the problems entirely, but it sure makes a parents job a hell of a lot easier and there's still more than enough work left for them to do.

I'm well aware of the hardships some children go through, and it is very unfortunate. However, you have now reached the point in your argument where you are lumping drug addiction in with teenagers playing video games. Drugs have nothing to do with age; they are illegal for everyone. Child neglect and abuse is also illegal, and is one of the ways the government tries to make sure parents do their job, which is something I have no problem with. This issue has nothing to do with any of those things, however. Is an abused child with alcoholic parents and a drug addiction going to be any worse off if they play C&C Generals? If a kid is picked on relentlessly by his classmates to the point where he wants to kill them all so they'll leave him alone, is playing Generals going to make him any worse? If he straps some dynamite to themselves afterwards and blow up their high school, who are you going to blame? The game? The evening news? Terroists? The parents? The classmates? The parents of the classmates? There are many bad, evil, wrong things in this world, but I don't believe most video games qualify, and certainly not to the extent that the government should regulate them. Of course, there are some exceptions to the "games aren't evil or wrong" statement, such as games created by supremisist groups designed to stimulate racial hatred. But even those are protected by the freedom of speech, and it's left up to the morality of the publishers not to produce them, the stores not to sell them, and the parents not to let their children have them. For the most part, I think the games that are truely evil are being regulated just fine without government intervention. The games that would really affect children aren't being produced.

I think that petition was supposed to be a joke, although a very bad one. Yeah I think sensitivity about 9/11 is overblown too, especially since there are way worse things happeneing everyday elsewhere in the world. You should note though, that AFIK none of these delayed movies or other decisions made out of sensitivity for 9/11 were actually because of the govemnent. Those were all decisions made by private entities out of respect and various other reasons.

Yes, all decisions have been based on the morals of the people producing the movies, or pressure from the public. While I do think people have been a bit over-sensitive in this regard, I believe this shows strength in the ability for the public to regulate themselves with regards to content in media and entertainment, and is a good example of why the government doesn't need to regulate it.

I'm not terribly familiar with the laws on age restrictions for video games in Germany, I only know that they have banned numerous video games from being sold at all in the country, and have put more on their adult list than any other country. I'd ask for your clarification on what exactly they entail. Is it illegal for a parent to buy a mature rated game and give it to a minor? Is it illegal for a parent to buy a banned game in another country and import it? Is it illegal to order banned games online from other countries?

[edit] btw, sie sind gute Leute, Gollum. (Ich bin auslander und spreche nicht gut Deutsch)

[Goragoth]

C&C:G has a Teen rating in the US (suitable for persons age 13 and over) and I think that is fair enough. The next rating would be mature (17+) and that would really be excessive... Anyway the whole ratings system is broken because people are all different but I tend to be a pessimist and think that most people are stupid and can't decide for themselves what is good and what isn't so I support government censorship...mostly.

As to C&C:G being insensitive, I don't really think so. I think it is just satirical on the whole world situation right now. It is funny and witty if you understand the humour but I can see how it can be missinterpritated by younger people. Any rating decision won't please everyone but age restrictions are easy enough to get around anyway (just get an older person to buy it) that they are really only a recommendation and that is fair enough.

[Gollum]

Good attempt at german Crusher, have you studied the language a little at some point?

On a general note, I kind of forgot an important point I wanted to make in all my babbling. It is important that its not the government itself that sets the guidelines for the regulation of age restrictions, but rather independent organizations. The goverment should provide a framework of laws that would make such a self-regulation of the media work. I think most other points have been discussed thoroughly now and I'm happy it didn't turn the thread into a flamewar. Basically I think we have more in common than we thought. :)

I'm not terribly familiar with the laws on age restrictions for video games in Germany, I only know that they have banned numerous video games from being sold at all in the country, and have put more on their adult list than any other country. I'd ask for your clarification on what exactly they entail. Is it illegal for a parent to buy a mature rated game and give it to a minor? Is it illegal for a parent to buy a banned game in another country and import it? Is it illegal to order banned games online from other countries?

This is gonna get complicated! ;)

No, it itsn't illegal for a parent to buy mature rated material and give it to a minor and I think that's okay. In all the discussion above I think I forgot to mention that I agree with this policy. Parents should have the right to give their children access to mature content if they think it can handle it. I am not entirely familiar with how the age ratings for e.g. software work in the US, but I think they have more meaning than here in Germany.

We have an independent, non-governmental organisation called USK, which roughly translated means entertainment-software self control. Their board of experts rate pretty much all games and entertainment software released and give age reccomendations for those titles. Unfortunatelly they are not much more than guidelines at this point AFAIK, unlike with movies where the FSK (equivalent of the USK for the movie industry) reccomendations are actually binding by law. So while it is against the law to sell a FSK18 movie to a 12 year old, this is not the case with a computer game rated 18 by the USK. As you can probably guess by now, the bureaucracy is horribly ineffective in keeping up with the constantly changing forms of media and entertainment, which is the one main source of the problem. Another one is that submission to USK rating is still voluntary, you don't HAVE to get a rating to publish your game/software, and it won't be as long as the goverment decides to keep its eyes closed on this matter.

On the other hand there is the BPjS, which roughly translated means something like "federal test center for youth endangering scripts" (you can probably tell that I pieced this together using a translator, hehe), which operates as an autonomous agency with the ministry for family. What exactly defines "youth endangering" would be an entire topic in itself, excessive violence, belittlement or glorification of war, Nazi symbolism and ideology as well as pornography are among the most common reasons for getting on the BPjS index though. The index of the BPjS does not mean that a "script" (a script can be any form of digital or printed media, book, video, movie, software, etc.) is forbidden, but access to it is strictly for adults only. You may neither advertise the product, nor openly display it in stores or write about it in publications. A store is allowed to have it on stock and sell it to adults, though effectively any chance of financial success for a product that gets indexed is killed.

An easy way to get on the index is for a product to carry the name of a previously indexed product (content consistency is assumed), of course there are loopholes, but those require court ruling. In case of movies the FSK age guidelines are accepted by the BPjS and only movies that have not been rated at all or that are rated 18+ are considered for indexing. Computer games on the other hand are not "protected" by the USK ratings as the USK are not officially accepted by the law, thus even games with a 12 or 16 rating by the USK may end up getting reviewed and indexed by the BPjS.

IMHO it would be time for the goverment to move on and work together with the USK to establish a true and meaningfull, legally binding rating process, similar to how it is done together with the FSK for movies. I guess in the US of A and many other countries this has already been worked out, not here though... ;)