The Australian - total n00b rag

I usually find The Australian to be pretty good, but this changes everything.

It's a n00b rag. This blog craps all over it. I posted about a similar subject recently, the biggest difference being I know exactly what I'm talking about, and The Australian has no idea.

Sometimes I'm just taken aback at the n00bness of some people. Natalie O'Brien clearly didn't bother to check any of what these moronic interviewers were telling her. And there is not a single mention of Counter-Strike (which is the most obvious target).

Reading 'Virtual Terrorists' (a total n00bfest of an article), I came across this:

Kevin Zuccato, head of the Australian High Tech Crime Centre in Canberra, says terrorists can gain training in games such as World of Warcraft in a simulated environment, using weapons that are identical to real-world armaments.

WTF!? Clearly this n00b hasn't even played WoW.

If you're a n00b like him, let me explain why.

Have a look at the list of weapons on WoW.

According to Zuccato, we should be worried about 'terrorists' turning up to wreak havoc with...a Ballast Maul of the Bear, identical to its real-world armament as you can see.


And the simulated environments...very worrying. It'll be far too easy to plot an attack in a place like this:


What terrorist traning is there to be had in WoW? Honestly, if you haven't seen it in action, try and tell me that Leroy's clan was plotting a real life attack. The only terror caused by WoW is a bit of healthy family wrecking, and Leroy Jenkins-ness.

However, the WoW kid does have a moment of profound insight. In case you missed the link.

"It's not the computer game that's seperating this family, it's what you're reacting to it!"

Well put, kid, well put.

UPDATE:

I am right and the Aus is wrong.

Read the other responses:

Here

Here

and Here.

This last one being particularly important, in showing the true story behind the 'terrorist' plot. Where did O'Brien get the idea that the bombs killed player characters? Virtual-coffins??
Players can't die in Second Life- end of story. O'Brien is writing her own fiction.

sif ban CS Ruddock u n00b

Ruddock wants to ban films, books and computer games which encourage terrorism.

Does this mean Counter-Strike is under threat of a ban? Afterall, one side of the team are the terrorists, and the aim of the game is to set off bombs, keep hostages, and act in a generally terrorising manner whilst pwning n00bs.

It's also one of the most popular online games in the world.

Hopefully I've made my position on games clear from the previous article, but if not, I'll just quote Shigeru Miyamoto, creator of Zelda and Mario (via Wikipedia):

""Video games bad for you? (laughs) That's what they said about rock and roll."

Surely Ruddock wouldn't be that much of a spoil-sport, and I do realise the bigger issue pertains to the banning of books which are a valuable academic resource, and don't even get me started on banning films.

But surely other people have had Counter-Strike pop into their heads when they heard about Ruddocks latest?

In any event, it must be said: zomfg Ruddock am ghey ffs.

Guerilla Gamers

Well well well, computer games aren't the evil addiction that everyone has been making them out to be.

And by everyone, I mean family values conservatives like Jack Thompson and Andrew Bolt.

I note the disclaimer in that article about huge periods of gaming being bad for social interaction.

The same can be said about huge periods of reading, watching films, listening to music, studying and almost all the fun individual activities.

However, I'm still waiting for an article to shut up the people who claim that computer games are training a generation of crack-shot killers. This might help.

Still, let's just sit down and look at the argument on the table: that computer games train or cause people to be murderers.

If I'm to be persuaded into agreeing, I want statistics showing a disproportionate number of murderers being gamers.

Certainly in terms of notable violent crimes, the computer game connection has only been made a handful of times. Columbine, Virginia Tech, some guy in Germany, probably a few others that I'm missing. But given that the overall amount of violent crime is so high, then one possible conclusion is that everyone should play games, since so few violent crimes are committed by gamers.

It's fuzzy logic, but no fuzzier than that used by the anti-games crowd.

Ultimately, the conclusive or correlative studies haven't been done yet. I might attempt a collection of data myself some time in the future.