Anger at Baby Shaker game (Paging Daily Mail)

Hero of Canton wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:

Really? REALLY?

It's not even a game. You're all fussing over almost nothing. It's like a joke. Everyone making such a fuss over a a few pictures of black and white drawn babies, one sound effect and two crosses with some shaking will set the games industry back a few years.

I bet over ninety percent of the people making a fuss about the game have not even seen the game.

$ilva $hadow wrote:







Everything blown out of proportion. This isn't even a game, it's just retarded and funny that someone spent time making this. This should not have made the news. They should have kept it on the store and let morons waste money on it.

As much as I hate to admit it, (I don't like these kind of "sick" games at all) and can see why HoC's opinions on it, I find the "game" retard as well, and made me laugh a bit.

Before anyone claims that I don't like babies, don't go around putting these words in my mouth. I have a nephew who's 1 year old as well new-born niece and I would be very offended if it's more than just "Xs" and actually killing the babies. However, the video it seems if you're just shaking them to calm them down (:shifty:) and Xs was actually showing that they're sleeping........?

...All in all though I just find the video semi-funny, it's just retard and doesn't seem to be alot of effort in making it. >.>

I wouldn't have laughed at the game had I seen it a few days ago. But after all the fuss that's been made, I had some high expectations on seeing a 3dmodel of a baby with its eyes roll back and then for the crosses to appear. But now it's strawberry floating funny as hell in the face of all the uproar. The 'game' is barely a game at all. It's a piece of trash that retard chavs would have wasted money on. It wasn't funny before, it's funny as strawberry float now though in the face of games violence makes people kill babies.

Seven wrote:Before anyone claims that I don't like babies

Best line to come out of this discussion by far.

jambot wrote:

Hero of Canton wrote:Madworld

Why have you singled out this game? Isn't it largely because you feel you can safely make a case against its 'real world' feel?

Nah, it's because its graphics are black, white and red like Baby Shaker.

Surely you can see that this is a diversion from the original point that was made i.e. there are plenty of games (and other media outputs) that are in poor taste but which we choose to defend against the claims of the reactionary would-be censors from the Daily Moron.

Yeah...I mean, I don't want to waste too much of my time going into this, because I could go on for a long time. I do think that it's sad that the games industry does make so much stuff that is in poor taste, and that half the time said games are (very deliberately) marketed at a younger audience than their age-rating suggests they're aimed at. When everyone was saying Manhunt 2 shouldn't be banned, I did actually think that those campaigning for it to be at least censored did have a point. I do think the games industry has a lot of growing up to do before it can start to justify the excessive level of violence it often seems to glorify. MadWorld is an interesting case in point because it takes things to extremes - while I can understand people being disturbed by, say, Manhunt, it's hard to see anyone taking offence at MadWorld because - as mentioned - its violence is amplified to such ludicrous levels that its closest reference point is Itchy & Scratchy.

It is in poor taste. I'm not convinced that this in itself is sufficient cause for censorship.

I understand that viewpoint, but I do think it's sad that someone made this and saw fit to try and make money out of it. I do think as a society we've become so used to seeing violence (whether fictional or otherwise) that we're slightly numbed to it. I'd like to think we could live in the world where we find something like this pretty shocking, but instead half the people here find it funny, while plenty of others are arguing that it shouldn't have been pulled. If this had been released for the Amiga twenty years ago, I'm sure it would have caused an outcry. Now it's just 'LOL shaking babies to death is funny'. Perhaps I'm more sensitive now I'm a dad, but I am genuinely a bit saddened that I'm bringing him into a world that finds that sort of thing amusing. Maybe I play too many Nintendo games, I dunno.

I am convinced that is sufficient cause to justify controlled distribution i.e. age-rating.

Yeah, definitely. I suppose if people want to buy this sort of thing and be amused by it, then more fool them. But I think it's depressing that someone should be making money from this.

Mostly, I am bewildered as to why any marketing team in their right minds would want this crappola associated with their whiter-than-white brand.

I think it just shows how rigorous - or not - Apple's checking procedure for applications is. It's clear it'll let any old shite onto the AppStore.

Echarin wrote:

Parents whose children died or were permanently injured due to their babies...

The babies' babies? What?

It seems teenage pregnancy is a bigger problem than we first thought...

Hero of Canton wrote:

Echarin wrote:

Patrick Donohue and Jennipher Dickens are both parents of baby shake victims

Read: Baby-killers.

Not funny.

I know.

Don't know what I was thinking.

Seven obviously doesn't like babies.

Hero of Canton wrote:but I do think it's sad that someone made this and saw fit to try and make money out of it.

I completely agree with this - I think I have the same reaction instinctively as you have outlined, but I also have to recognise that it's (apparently) the right of every one of you vermin humans to be utter morons.

But then I have the same feeling about Derek Acorah and I actually think that his defrauding of the (retarded members of the) public is a more urgent case for censorship.

jambot wrote:

Hero of Canton wrote:but I do think it's sad that someone made this and saw fit to try and make money out of it.

I completely agree with this - I think I have the same reaction instinctively as you have outlined, but I also have to recognise that it's (apparently) the right of every one of you vermin humans to be utter morons.

Beautifully put.

Dandy Kong wrote:

Peter Crisp wrote:Bad taste is one thing but I feel this goes beyond that. Even comedy has limits and some things are just seen as not fit subjects.

Fair enough. And you are of course entirely entitled to your opinion. Do keep in mind though, that it is your personal opinion and others may think that it is funny.

Just like there are others who feel that the games I mentioned before are "beyond bad taste" and feel about the simulating of killing for fun in those games just like you feel about the "baby shaker" game.

So are you saying becuase some people think its funny to rape someone film it and post iton the internet then it should be allowed to stay for the world to see or paedophilia? I mean you would be going in to a dodgy area there. You may find it funny but that type of think in my opinion shouldn't be put on an app store as it isn't appropriate. Before you say its becuase you have kids i really don't not even thinking about them yet, but i still think just becuase some find it funny doesn't mean that it should be up there then by what your saying what ever people think is funny would be allowed and like PC says that would end in hell.

Apple will have to keep a stronger aye on the store otherwise they might lose control of it if other games like these slip out.

It's a pretty appalling concept for a game, of that there's no question.

The blame here however lies solely with Apple for not paying close enough attention to what goes up on their Store.