Universal Videogame List - www.uvlist.net

re: Tag ideas
Noting these are good, but I think tags are not the best way to do so. §forgiveness, §selfishness, and §empathy are initially documented in the purposed S.I.N.N.E.R.S. system. I'm using googledocs so full a definition of the system and descriptors can be reached by consensus. I (zerothisSpAmPrOoFthis.uvl@gmail.com) can add viewers and editors if I know their gmail names. As can Andrea. But, they can be tagged now and the S.I.N.N.E.R.S descriptors added later (if S.I.N.N.E.R.S gets accepted)

The wiki should've been enough (unless this was started ages ago separately), as the functionality is close to the same (most notable differences being real document formatting versus wikiformatting and "version" changes don't need separate software [svn client] to see :P) and the document will be automatically visible in an (already) affiliated webspace :)

I considered other options including wikis, and using the UVL wiki/bug tracker. But the integrated version tracking and openoffice import/export (I work on it offline a lot and I ) are very important right now. I routinely send odt documents to people of cultures I am less familiar with, who would never go to a videogame site, to get their opinions/corrections. googledocs are really good for controlling who can edit/view which will become increasingly important if/as the system expands (wikis are susceptible to vandalism). Oh, and the S.I.N.N.E.R.S. preceded the UVL wiki.

Completely public ones are, yes, but the google code's wiki is only editable by project members, though I think anyone can throw their comments in there (as long as they're logged in to google).

The wiki also has the same version tracking google docs has, but isn't accessible from the web interface, you need SVN client for that (as I already mentioned).

But since you seem to require features the wiki doesn't offer.. probably good it's kept in the docs for now. Wouldn't mind if the doc was auto-published and the URL was provided somewhere in the main site or the google project page, though. Or is there reason to keep it such a secret?

re: re:

Yes, to protect the system from mis-use and because it might someday be put into use elsewhere besides UVL, I was planning on copyrighting, patenting, and trademarking it, or Andrea could do so. Not to make money, but just to keep it from being abused.
(I'm about to attempt to be censored again so I disclaim that Andrea is free to edit my comments :)
I've seen how the ERSB has been misused, revoking game ratings because of unauthorized game hacks, games with nudity and graphic hard drug use are rated E without descriptors, board members are completely anonymous/unaccountable and no one knows how they are chosen, rating standards fluctuate with time, in fact there are no set standards so the board just decides them per game, no one knows how or why the board assigned a rating or a descriptor, the members don't even have to explain themselves to each other. Most of all, the board is not even required to see the game! No one knows for sure, but legal evidence has been shown that suggest most games get ratings and descriptors based solely on the publisher's request without the board members even being informed.[/rant]
I want to see everything established up front in a way the should never need to be changed (as much as that is possible) and protected so it cannot be changed unless absolutely necessary and certainly so it cannot be changed by politics.

re: re: re:

Unfortunately if that was possible, it would either indicate great foresight or that nothing truly new is being made anymore and/or nothing changes.

re: re: re: re:

Unfortunately if that was possible, it would either indicate great foresight or that nothing truly new is being made anymore and/or nothing changes.

[/quote]

About ESRB

If they had clear and comprehensive guidelines then shouldn't it say "to indicate what content triggered the rating"? And this page does not mention guidelines. This page includes an option to complain about content. There is no evidence that a content based complaint has ever been responded to or even seen by anyone at the ESRB using this website or by writing to them. They have however responded to public and written complaints by politicians and to complaints from people who dislikes their re-ratings. They have no public policy that reveals how they handle complains about their ratings. They do have a policy of responding to complaints of retailers selling T, M and A-O games to underage kids.

"Publishers submit game content to the ESRB on a confidential basis. It is simply not our place to reveal specific details about the content we have reviewed" - Patricia Vance, President of ESRB.

?! Seems they are helping the consumer make informed decisions by not informing them of specific details. They emphasize that they are there "especially for the parents". They don't think parents should know specific details?

I'm not alone in my complaints, experts agree:
One ESRB rater, Jerry Bonner, has 'gone public' on his own accord and has his own complaints about the ESRB:

1. Drop the A-O rating, ad a T-16 rating (reasoning: M is supposedly 17+ only, yet there's this rating on top of it for 18+, 365 days makes it better?)
   
2. Have a rater play through the games all the way
   
3. Stop rating sequels according to the content in their predecessors (according to Bonner, ESRB does this)
   
4. Be more open; don't be so secretive
   
5. Give weight the the rater's opinion instead of comities (He claims the raters for ESRB are overruled by comities who don't even see the DVD!)
   
6. Force ESRB to improve and expand consumer choice by adding competing rating systems
   

I totally agree with 4 out of five. As for the other 2, I agree that having a 17+ and an 18+ is silly, however my thought is eliminate age entirely, just list the content, and let consumers decide which ages fit. I agree with 3, with qualifiers. Ratings of the other games in a series should not affect each other but should be noted with each other. Parents should know if the buy [[gameid:38081 Conker's Pocket Tales]] for their kid that the should be prepared to deal with [[gameid:19111 Conker's Bad Fur Day]] also. And consumers in general might not be getting what they expect if they buy one based on owning the other.


Obviously it will not be perfect and descriptors will undoubtedly be added. But I'm hoping to avoid a total rewrite.

Aristotle defined the concept of narrative conflict between the protagonist and antagonist, for written media. Wasn't perfect, someone had to clarify that a balance needed to exist between the protagonist and antagonist to ensure drama. Others clarified that conflict could be summed up in 5 basic types. But no one ever threw out the original idea, they merely built on it. Aristotle didn't have intellectual property rights, computers, or the internet; but managed to reduce narrative to its most basic parts and 2400 years later were are labeling interactive media, which he possibly never conceived of, based his idea. So I think if a few dedicated individuals put their heads together, we can manage reducing content to its most basic types, just like Aristotle did with narrative, and not be overruled for at least a few years yet, and expecting a few additions along the way.

Great foresight is not nearly as important as basic hindsight. Humans have been produced recorded entertainment for at least 5000 years and I seriously doubt that any 'new' content has been added by videogames. Someone once accused a videogame of being a vicarious "murder simulator". Assuming this was true, 8-|, is it new? Did not Roman citizens show up in tens of thousands to see real murders in the Amphitheatrum Flavium? If it can be found in videogames then we should compare it to previous examples. If it can be found outside videogames, then we should ad that also,