need to fix a quick typo on the lat paragraph, missed an S in arnies name

I understand why he is distancing himself from the game. Just because you starred in a movie that was based on the same IP does not mean that you endorse it. He has to say it publicly though as people are stupid and will associate him with the game otherwise.

I can imagine why.

Whatever, we all know that Arnold is in control of the Conan NPC, whenever he is gonna spawn. They are just saying that he isn't connected with the game so that when people start camping him, they can't laugh at him in public about the major ownage he suffered at the hands of 10 year olds who's parents bought them the game without knowing what it was about, or even dared to look at the rating.

@ Paul Kerton

Just about every "family-friendly" movie he ever did had a lot of violence, even "Kindergarten Cop", making Arnold an even bigger hypocrite.

Not only that, but the Terminator movies spawned several games, and there were also games based on the movies True Lies(a movie you forgot to post on your list) and Total Recall.

This is the type of shit that disgusts me. Arnold has no problems playing in one of the most violent and masculine roles of the 1980's, but this sick industry's focus on the childhood gaming demographic has caused much of the media to retain the old stereotype of games=kids.

When will they understand that about 50% of all video games are not for children, and that most gamers could give a damn less about the welfare of children when it comes to games? Seriously. I'm getting sick and fing tired of all of these appeals to the children.

I hope Conan redefines physical violence and sexual content in video games. I hope it is so fing gory, sexual, and tasteful that it completely destroys the disgusting stereotype that is policing and destroying this industry.

Wasn't Conan like... a series of books before it was a movie? So... I don't think yon Governator can say much of anything. I mean... all he did was play the guy in the movie, but Conan has been around much longer, since the 30s at least.

i think we're getting to the point where the public are thinking "Games = for kids"
and the gamers who go around and discuss things are thinking "Games = for teens to adults".

imo :
Games can be for anyone.
no game should be censored absolutely.
Rating systems and retail controls need to be re-thought.

Well I didn't put True Lies on because, well, I couldn't remember it being that violent. In fact, the only things I remember from that film are the Harrier jump jet scene and Tom Arnold.

The man is a hypocrite, there is no denying it. Almost as hypocritical as being a Republican in the Kennedy family... oh wait...

I'm worried about Arnie. He might have some power here. He'll probably try to crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and then he'll probably try to hear the lamentations of the women.

Sad, really.

It sucks to say it but legal enforcement of the ratings (OFLC/ESRB or whatever version is relevant to the country you're in) is the only viable way to even try to stop kids getting stuff they shouldn't. I mean there's parents being involved in their children's lives as well but seriously, is that ever going to happen??

Voluntary ratings are an essential and enlightened step but give a shopkeeper the choice between selling GTA4 to a 12 year old or retaining an ethical code of conduct and they'll choose the cash every time. This goes at least double for a struggling independant competing against a Walmart/BigW/Kmart/EvilBigStoreInc megacorp. The same is probably true of the people working at the megacorps who probably depend on commission to supplement their minimum wage job.

Basically I've always thought that without some kind of threat, asking people to be nice will never work. You might as well leave a pile of money in the street with a sign saying "Please don't take any of this". Within 90 seconds the money will be gone and the sign will probably have been nicked too.

Things should never be banned, restricted is fine but banning is just not cool. Censorship is always a moment of outrage thing anyway. I mean in parts of Australia, the film "Silent Night, Deadly Night" was banned for violence and the frightning portrayal of a killer santa. You watch it now and it's just piss funny.

Setting aside the basic hypocrisy of it, I'm not sure what I think. On one hand - I'm annoyed at the double standard, but what would I expect him to say? I suppose it could be worse if he somehow tried to have the conan game exempted. That would be REALLY hypocritical. Plus, Conan was 20 years ago. It's somewhat possible he regrets making those films. I wouldn't know why, the Conans' were classics, all I'm saying is I'm less likely to hold Conan against him, then say, End of Days. That one just sucked.

Hopefully, video game companies will never solicit Schwarzenegger again for things like voice acting, now that he's changed and not for the better.

Oh and once again, I played the demo. It was terrible, with far more gore than was needed really.. I'm 25 and I still thought it was overkill.

Its pretty obvious that some developers realise the flaws in their gameplay and think "pack it with gore"

just shut the hell up schwarzenegger

I'd distance myself from the game too: it's *terrible*. It's like a cut-rate knockoff of God of War, and doesn't even manage to look as good as that last-gen title.

I guess the term "ultra-violent", as ridiculous as it sounds, as made it's way into the media when referring to certain videogames today. I don't remember the game Smash T.V. being ultra-violent.

Tis is a sad thing, seeing a fair to good actor turned into a political talking head.

Tell me does he still make royalities off his (violent) movies? If so then to be true to his stance against violent games he should refuse or cut off those funds and divert them to help his state (they need it). If he is okay with accepting that money then he is a hypocrite and is worthy of, and subject to disgust and disdain.

@ HandofCrom

I applaud you for your logic, and for bringing up Lovecraft :D

[...] Arnold Schwarzenegger has problems with the video game Conan The Barbarian because of its violence. Arnold played Conan in the violent film version back in 1982.Read More at Game PoliticsYour thoughts?  Published Dec 11 2007, 12:24 PM by lhester Filed under: california, videogames, manhunt2, violence, govenor, conan, esrb, lelandyee, arnoldschwarzenegger [...]

But he's not going to distance himself off the violent movies from which the game was based? And he can't see through this tracing paper think hypocrisy?

Who cares?!

Most Conan fans are familiar (at least, if not completely saturated with...) Robert E. Howard's original short stories written between 1932 and 1936 and consider the movies to be horrific bastardizations of the character and the property. To be honest, I'm just as GLAD that the Governator is distancing himself.

Ignore the idiot. Arnie doesn't even warrant the attention he gets.

...which is drawing criticism from [State Sen. Leland Yee] and warnings from [the National Institute on Media and the Family] to scratch the game off Christmas lists for children and teenagers.

Always with the "games are for kids" message.

Sorry, wanted to add, it's sort of like a Porn Star sitting in a mansion, paid for by their porn career, sipping on champagne, paid for by their porn career and running for governor based on publicity from their porn career, and then trying to pass anti-porn laws once they are elected, it's kind of like saying...

'I got rich and famous from working in this genre, so I'm going to make sure that I alone benefit from it.'

@Lasher,

I agree with the sentiment, but if a kid did get in and see Terminator, would Schwarzenegger be calling for government legislation of Movies because of it? He's perfectly happy to have his own movies watched over by a voluntary system, but just as willing to have other forms of media regulated by government, that's my problem with his position.

$50 to the first reporter that follows up this nonsense with "How about all your violent movies, Ahnold? Should they be removed from the Christmas list, too?"

I'll double that if they can pry a meaningful answer (e.g. none of those poliwhore non-answers) out of the hypocrite.

I'm serious.

@Icehawk

Heh, not much :)

Thing is, these claims the Arnie is 'making up' for his career in violent movies made by some people infuriates me, it's easy to 'make up' for something when it's already got you millions of dollars and a career in politics, I bet that when he was a broke European body-builder, his ethics didn't get in the way of making those millions.

I think you all miss the point, arnold isn't saying that the game should be banned, just regulated. His bill involves _KIDS_ not getting ahold of violent video games, not _ADULTS OLD ENOUGH TO BUY THE GAME BEING TURNED DOWN AT THE REGISTER_.

There's a difference between regulation and banning. He certainly was in favor of making incredibly violent movies WHEN THEY WERE RATED ACCORDINGLY. Of those films listed, the majority of them passed the MPAA screening process and were given their appropriate rating. In my opinion some of them should have been given a much lower rating, but then again, it's not up to me. There is no hypocrisy in him stating he wasn't involved in the new conan game (which is a good thing, it blows in my opinion). Conan was before him, and conan will exist after him, stop creating an issue where there is none.

@Deadpool

Until I see Arnie demanding those same rules apply to movies as well, it's double standards. I don't have a problem with age-rated legislature, I do have a problem with double standards.

"I think you all miss the point, arnold isn’t saying that the game should be banned, just regulated. His bill involves _KIDS_ not getting ahold of violent video games, not _ADULTS OLD ENOUGH TO BUY THE GAME BEING TURNED DOWN AT THE REGISTER_."


The hypocrisy comes in when you consider that if a minor is turned down from buying the Conan game in accordance with any theoretical regulation that Arnold wants, the same minor can instead buy one of the violent Arnold Conan movies that he isn't pushing for restrictions for.

Hence: hypocrisy.

@Jgok

The MPAA movie ratings aren't government enforced or regulated. There is no legislation to control the sales of movies as such. If something is added for video games, then it would be a double standard -- video games need regulation while movies don't? See.

@Erik: Precisely.

is it weird that i read this article in Arnold's voice?

it's not? good.

@Kendra Kirai
I believe the logic he uses is:

* M is for 17+
* The Legal age of adulthood is 18 (or 21 for certain things).
* 17 is less than 18.
* Anyone not an adult is a child.
* 17 = child.
* Therefore M rating is for children.

So, Yee (and other politicos) stands on his high horse saying that M rated games are made for children. I'd bet that's JT's logic as well (if JT used any logic at all).

Due to the fact that politicians are running with their heads where no light exists, they can't seem to understand the First Amendment, oy. I believe this calls for a higher standard in political competence. (Subject change) The government should be requiring MUCH more educated people and encourage more political education.

@Jgok

You are under the mistaken impression that the American Movie Rating System is enforced by law.

It is not, it is a voluntary system that works in exactly the same manner as computer game regulation.

I have a suggestion... Tell Arnold that we'll think about his legislation if he stops Terminator 4 from being made or better yet send him back in time to stop Terminator 3 from being made too.

Schwarzenegger is now the "tool-inator". I confirm.
He shouldn't turn down Conan for its violence. No, he should turn it down by the fact that it's published by THQ. Maybe the publisher's track records has him confused, since THQ is normally known mostly for its kid-friendly games.

[...] (via gamepolitics) Marc Grove Gespeichert in: Games [...]

get your ass to Mahs! - LOL Conejo

@ Kentonio

Maybe you should look that meaning up yourself.

Arnold is a hypocrite by criticizing and litigating against "violent" games, yet in the same breath, won't criticize "violent" movies, especially the movies he's made over the last twenty-five years.

[...] [via GamePolitics] PUBBLICITÀ PUBBLICITÀ (1 Voti | Media: 5 su 5) 0 Commenti [...]

@ Aliasalpha

That movie was called "Junior".

@Kentonio

For one, I watched Terminator when I was about 12.

For two, you might want to consider that 'violent movies' when my parents were young was a man in a black cloak and a woman in a nightgown screaming...

I dont know why he would distance himself. the game has an 18+ rating dont it. meaning it will requair credit card autintication and if any nigger groups dotn want there fagget children not playing they dont have to use there unetical cradit cards that they own in the first plays so fuck off you white trash SchwarzeNIGGER pice of fagget jew shit

@Erik

"The hypocrisy comes in when you consider that if a minor is turned down from buying the Conan game in accordance with any theoretical regulation that Arnold wants, the same minor can instead buy one of the violent Arnold Conan movies that he isn’t pushing for restrictions for.

Hence: hypocrisy. "

He has pushed for government regulation on films. You're creating a strawman.

"He has pushed for government regulation on films. You’re creating a strawman."


I've seen no evidence of this so far.

Also, why is he not distancing himself from the Conan movies?

Edit to my post above:

were it says "essentially" it should say especially.

@GoodRobotUs et all,

You watched a violent movie when you were young, and did your parents know that Terminator was a violent movie? Im guessing yes. If they still let you watch it, then surely they were simply using that parental choice you all go on about whenever the issue under discussion is censoring games? The issue then becomes, do most parents understand that games have ratings and do they take those ratings seriously? It would appear not, and so moves to try and strengthen protections seem perfectly rational.


@BearDogg-X,

No seriously, go look up the definition of hypocrisy, you still dont seem to be understanding it very well.


@Ahnuld's Bastard Child Says,

""The ONLY reason video games are being targeted more than movies as a violent media today is the fact that game lobbyists are weak compared to movie and tv lobbyists. ""

Well as someone who works in the games industry, I refuse to accept that the only way our industry can succeed is to use the same corrupt lobby system that tarnishes so much of the political arena. Our games can stand up on their own merits, and equally can fall on their faults. For every innovative, thought provoking game we get a Manhunt to set us back. When politicians try and stop mature games getting into the hands of kids, we get the same tired screams about freedom of speech and censorship that usually just mask an adolescent desire to see some sick shit.

Reading these comments regularly reminds me that the worst enemy of the gaming industry is the very gamers who buy its products. I just ferverently hope that the vocal minority dont represent the silent majority.