rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) (04/11/90)
Netbirders:
I know, y'all are probably wondering about the subject, and what a video
game has to do with birding. Well, read on, my friends...
When I was going to campus on the bus tonight, I overheard a couple of
video game nuts talking about a new video game that had come out, an "improved"
version of _Duck Hunt_. In _Duck Hunt_, the player took turns shooting at ducksand clay pigeons to amass the highest possible score. However, the new version,
_Bird Hunt_, really plays hardball. Rather than just ducks and clay pigeons,
a large variety of birds come out on the screen--and the player is expected to
shoot all of them. Apparently, the more endangered the species, the higher the score for shooting it. For example, shooting a Cardinal is worth about 10
points, while shooting an eagle is worth 10 times that much, 100 points.
Apparently the game even uses falcons as targets (point value unknown). And, ifthis isn't enough, as the game progresses, more and more powerful weapons are
used, right up to a .761 caliber, able to "red-mist a sparrow at 100 yards" (youfigure that one out--that's a quote from the slob hunters that I overheard).
With the birding community having enough trouble with trying to protect the
birds from greedy slob hunters/poachers, do we really need such a video game
teaching our youngsters that it's fun to "shoot" endangered bird species?
I myself am a video game nut, but I think this is carrying things way too far!
If anybody else has information on this video game, i.e. has seen it, knows who
makes/distributes it, etc, please write and/or post to me. I am considering
starting a protest against it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Cody Buchmann ^.^
"Kehaar"
"He tell *me* the plan...I *know* the
email: rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu plan!" -Watership Down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ bamford@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (harold.e.bamford) (04/11/90)
rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) writes: > ...However, the new version, >_Bird Hunt_, really plays hardball. Rather than just ducks and clay pigeons, >a large variety of birds come out on the screen--and the player is expected to >shoot all of them. Apparently, the more endangered the species, >the higher the score for shooting it. For example, shooting a >Cardinal is worth about 10 points, while shooting an eagle is >worth 10 times that much, 100 points. Apparently the game even >uses falcons as targets (point value unknown). And, ifthis isn't >enough, as the game progresses, more and more powerful weapons are >used, right up to a .761 caliber, able to "red-mist a sparrow at >100 yards" (youfigure that one out--that's a quote from the slob >hunters that I overheard). > >With the birding community having enough trouble with trying to protect the >birds from greedy slob hunters/poachers, do we really need such a video game >teaching our youngsters that it's fun to "shoot" endangered bird species? >I myself am a video game nut, but I think this is carrying things way too far! Give me a break! Its the middle of April so this cannot be an April Fools joke. It is just a video game. It isn't real. There ARE people that have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality and these people should not go to plays or movies, should not read fiction, and should not play video games. But most of the rest of us, including children, understand the difference in rules between the world of a video game and real life. The exceptions are just that, EXCEPTIONS! If you really disapprove of this game, then don't give it free advertising by protesting it. Remember the movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ"? I only wanted to see it because of the protesters. It turned out to be a worthless, boring movie. It would have been out of the theaters in a week if it hadn't been for people like you that wanted to impose their own opinions and attitudes on others. This kind of protest is self-defeating. Mellow out! And if you must continue with this discussion, lets get it out of this newsgroup. Jeez! -- Harold
dragon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Sam Conway) (04/12/90)
In article <14108@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> bamford@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (harold.e.bamford,ihp,) writes: >rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) writes: >> ...However, the new version, >>_Bird Hunt_, really plays hardball. Rather than just ducks and clay pigeons, (etc. etc.) >Give me a break! Its the middle of April so this cannot be an >April Fools joke. It is just a video game. It isn't real. (blah blah blah blah) > >Mellow out! And if you must continue with this discussion, lets >get it out of this newsgroup. > >Jeez! > >-- Harold Hi, Harold! I think that there is someone who needs a bit more mellowing than Kehaar does. I loved your argument about people who can't distinguish fantasy from reality; I applaud it, in fact, since I've used a similar argument on the opponents of the Dungeons and Dragons game. There's one tiny little fact that you are overlooking, though: the REALITY is that 90% of the youngsters out there are not aware that hawks are protected. At least half that number think that it is actually OK, even COOL, to shoot down a hawk. Thus, to them it is NOT fantasy. Ooooo, I can hear the sound of your eyebrows being raised in utter disbelief. Take it from a fellow who has had to rescue far too many hawks who have been brought down by teenagers (and pre-teenagers) who were "just shooting at some dumb bird". That, as a matter of fact, is what I always hear when the perpetrators are caught. They didn't know any better. They didn't know any better, and Kehaar's (and my) point is that this game, while certainly mostly harmless and no more bloodthirsty than a lot of shoot-em-ups out there, does not help the situation. It's depressing for me to be busting my tail trying to educate people about hawks, only to find that there's a game out there that is reaching thousands of more kids than I could ever hope to, and giving them the exact opposite impression. Now, as to your argument about "keeping this off the net", what better newsgroup is there to discuss such a thing? We talk about birds here, yes? This article deals with birds, to a sufficient extent to be included here. What I agree does NOT belong here is the long and tedious flame-war that I see building on the horizon, so I would like to ask that any direct flames be limited to e-mail. Save the net for intellectual discourse. The greatest thrill I ever got in my life was identifying a red- shouldered hawk in the field for a policeman, in the company of the 13-year-old kid who had shot it dead in flight. Such sweet words: "This is a protected species. Officer, arrest this boy." (Yes, I'm mean and nasty! I admit it! But it felt so GOOOOOD!) -- Sam Conway * Well, may I ask what you expected dragon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu * to see from the window of a Chemistry Dept., Dartmouth College, NH * Torquay hotel? Sydney Opera House? Vermont Raptor Center (VINS) * The Hanging Gardens of Babylon?
bamford@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (harold.e.bamford) (04/13/90)
Sam Conway writes: >In article [...] (harold.e.bamford,ihp,) writes: Stuff deleted. >Now, as to your argument about "keeping this off the net", what >better newsgroup is there to discuss such a thing? We talk about >birds here, yes? This article deals with birds, to a sufficient >extent to be included here. What I agree does NOT belong here is >the long and tedious flame-war that I see building on the horizon, >so I would like to ask that any direct flames be limited to e-mail. >Save the net for intellectual discourse. I agree this should go to email. In fact I have replied to Sam directly. But I must protest this blatant misquote. I did not say to keep it off the net. I suggested that a "protest" (as in front of the arcade, NOT on the net) would have undesirable results. *** We now return you to our regularly scheduled program, *** "Poor Dietary Habits of Some Cockatoos" already in progress... -- Harold
misan@ra.abo.fi (Annika Forsten DC) (04/13/90)
In article <14108@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> bamford@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (harold.e.bamford) writes: > rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) writes: > > ...However, the new version, > >_Bird Hunt_, really plays hardball. Rather than just ducks and clay pigeons, > >a large variety of birds come out on the screen--and the player is expected to > >shoot all of them. Apparently, the more endangered the species, > Give me a break! Its the middle of April so this cannot be an > April Fools joke. It is just a video game. It isn't real. There > ARE people that have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality > and these people should not go to plays or movies, should not read > fiction, and should not play video games. But most of the rest of > us, including children, understand the difference in rules between > the world of a video game and real life. The exceptions are just > that, EXCEPTIONS! I disagree strongly with the above (and agree with Sam Conway) that a lot of kids can't distinguish between reality and fantasy. They have their reality from television and games. That's what they come into contact with, how on earth would they know it's not the truth if nobody tells them? And you certainly can't forbid those who don't know reality from fantasy to play games, how would you do that? Don't know how television encourages violence for instance? This is the same thing. A game where the kids were supposed to shoot non-protected species would not be good, but less bad than a game which encourages the killing and negative feeling towards protected and rare species. We have to fight against these attitudes often enough anyway. Why not make videogames which promotes positive action for nature, instead? > If you really disapprove of this game, then don't give it free > advertising by protesting it. Remember the movie, "The Last > Temptation of Christ"? I only wanted to see it because of the > protesters. It turned out to be a worthless, boring movie. It > would have been out of the theaters in a week if it hadn't been for > people like you that wanted to impose their own opinions and > attitudes on others. This kind of protest is self-defeating. I agree that protesting it will only advertise it. If there were of stopping the game without publicity it would be much better. > Mellow out! And if you must continue with this discussion, lets > get it out of this newsgroup. I think this discussion belongs in this newsgroup, after all it is a universal problem, concerning much more than just this videogame, so why not discuss it? The problem of teaching kids (and adults) how nature works and why and how to protect it, not destroy it. We could leave the flaming to e-mail though. Annika Forsten, Abo Akademi, Finland misan@ra.abo.fi