That’s a fair point. M isn’t really high enough if the game involves something minors are not legally allowed to do.

Well... Kind of. The fact that you are guaranteed to get something is kind of BS. The fact that they have wildly different values to you in game should mean it’s still gambling, but that’s the ESRB’s defense of this.

Well, it’s not surprising. It’s an industry organization, founded by them to protect them. Sega originally started it, or it’s predecessor, because congress was pissed off about Mortal Kombat. Two decades later, it’s still just there to protect them. It’s rare that this type of thing comes up, but not surprising that…

It’s not legally gambling, at least by the US definition. You can’t win something of monetary value, and you are guaranteed something, therefore it’s not gambling.

Yeah, the one thing they had going for them was that the mainstream press, and therefore politicians, were not paying attention. EA managed to make the system so goddamn bad that everyone took notice. Dan Stapleton of IGN was on one of their podcasts the other day and pointed out the fact that this system was so…

Oddly enough, the ESRB was the on that could have saved them this time. People asked them to rate all games with loot box gambling mechanics as M, because children aren’t allowed to gamble. They said it wasn’t technically gambling. Now this Congressman is out in front of the cameras able to talk about how EA is using…

I don’t see any slippery slope here. I just can’t make the connection in my head between them doing this, and what that could possibly lead to.

Yeah, I think your headline is pretty accurate here. This isn’t quite true. I think it has a lot of truth in it, but it was oversimplified.

I think there is definitely a chance they’ll just re-institute them, but to do so, they are going to need to make changes, and they are going to need to find good spin. But, there is a strong chance they won’t. After all, that’s what they already did twice. They changed them after the beta, and then they just changed…

No, let me explain my analogy better, because I think I screwed that up. People have used evolution to justify racism. Not the creationists, but people who believe in evolution. The creationists just pointed that out, saying that the theory is inherently racist. However, the theory isn’t inherently racist. Is has just…

You make fair points. This definitely has a more direct tie to racism than some other art styles from the past. I don’t know where the line is, though. When does a whole art form become inseparable from the racism? If they were actually using racist imagery in their game, that would be one thing, but they aren’t. So,…

You make fair points. This definitely has a more direct tie to racism than some other art styles from the past. I don’t know where the line is, though. When does a whole art form become inseparable from the racism? If they were actually using racist imagery in their game, that would be one thing, but they aren’t. So,…

Yeah, this is what gets to me. I mean, if they were referencing a specific type of art that was only tied to racism, that’s different. But this art wasn’t inherently racist. It was just spawned in a time where society was far more openly racist than today.

I think you just failed to make the case. They wanted this art style. I’m all for games tackling serious issues, but I don’t think using this art style means this game has to, whether the creators want to or not. As long as they aren’t putting the racist imagery in their game, I don’t think they have to deal with the…

I’m not saying I like him. I think his policy positions are terrible. My problem is that you think he’s an enemy. You view him exactly the way Tea Party views the left. You all hate him for being a Republican, and are angry anyone would praise him for doing something good. This is a sign of our polarized society. They…

Trump’s team has policy positions. Trump cares about immigration, the wall, and trade. Not much else. And even on those issues, he doesn’t have even a basic understanding of the issues, nor does he care to learn. He wants to be able to say he did those things. He likes praise and credit, hates being criticized, and he…

You have it backwards. He isn’t speaking out because he’s retiring. He’s retiring because he spoke out. He kept criticizing Trump, and Trump had a stronger hold on the base, so Flake’s popularity in his state cratered. He went down fighting.

No, it wasn’t the same thing as in 2016. In 2016, they tried to stay out of it. They would criticize Trump if something was bad enough, but also try to minimize it. Yesterday, Jeff Flake did the opposite. He tried to tell his party they can’t do that anymore. He told them they can’t ignore it. That’s a good thing.

I’m not trying to call myself a victim. I don’t care much. This site is new, and I can walk away and not care that much. I’m trying to tell you guys that you are becoming the liberal version of the Tea Party. My bigger concern, the thing that does make me feel really bad, is that I don’t want there to be a liberal Tea…

That doesn’t follow. Trump doesn’t even give a shit about most policies. He wants them to put anything on his desk that he can sign and call a victory. On most issues, he doesn’t care what it is. One can be a member of any party and still not like Trump because Trump is not defined by policy positions.