GAMES: GameSpot: Best of 2008 | GameFAQs | SportsGamer MUSIC: Last.fm | MP3.com MOVIES: Metacritic | Movietome TV: TV.com
Click Here

Warning notification

So the other day, I came on this website to check up on some things like I always do and I saw that I had a message. Not to sound like a dork or anything, but I was excited. It's nice to see that someone might have left you some feedback on reviews or whatever (although most messages are union invitations) so I was looking forward to what the message had in store for me. Much to my surprise, it was a warning. So I wondered, for what? It turns out my avatar (you know, that little picture next to my name) was deemed "offensive." Please.

In case some of your minds are hazy, my picture was from Peter Jackson's cult horror flick Dead Alive (aka Braindead). It showed a zombie baby emerging from somebody elses face. Now I understand how that image is rather graphic, but here's what I don't get. Why is that deemed offensive when content that Gamespot puts up on this website themselves is far worse? Seriously, has anybody looked at screenshots or watched videos of some of the more violent games on here? For instance, games like Bioshock and Resident Evil 4 are insanely violent and graphic and Gamespot puts them up no problem. Why is that "ok" but my picture isn't? Where do they draw the line? Apparently, Gamespot gets their rules from the old "I can do what I want, but I don't want anyone else to do it" book.

Please, for the sake of my argument, go look at some screenshots from Resident Evil 4. They have pictures of people's heads getting blown off with a fountain of blood pouring out and the main character getting his flesh ripped to shreds by a chainsaw. Now go look at some videos from other mature games. Chances are you'll find graphic, violent, bloody, and even sometimes scary pictures and videos far worse than what my extremely fake looking and somewhat humorous picture showed. I don't care if it's game related or not, you cannot pick and choose what is suitable and what is not suitable for this website. There needs to be set rules and they need to be followed. Gamespot has set rules, but they sure as hell don't follow them. I can't believe they took away my avatar. They need to sit down and have a thorough look at their rules and how they carry them out. This was a hypocritical move on their part and I hope they come to realize that.

Now I'm not going to stop coming to this site or anything. I still think they do a great job of giving me the news and reviews that I want. However, my avatar is no worse than COUNTLESS other videos and images on this very website. I'm disappointed in them and they should be ashamed for being so hypocritical when it comes to the rules.

Posted by MallratsJaySB, 02/17/2008 9:50pm
7 Comments  | Post Comment Sign up to post comments!

Comments

Previous   |   Next
Page: 1
You've had that avatar for awhile, and I never found it offensive. Why did they decide now to warn you about it?
Posted 02/17/2008 10:42pm
I had nothing to do with this, so I can only venture a guess (so don't quote me on this! ). The justification was probably something along the lines of your avatar being public, while screenshots from games like Resident Evil 4 are more hidden away. It's true that anyone can find those screenshots, but you'd have to look in order to find them, and anyone who didn't want to see them could very easily not look up the game's screenshots. I don't think such screenshots would be posted on anything put onto the front page of GameSpot, though correct me if I'm wrong.

Conversely, a person's avatar is much more public, and can be seen everywhere that the person posts. So, very graphic content could very easily be seen by someone browsing a forum where that person posts, and it could well be the case that that person did not want to see such an image. It's for this reason - that avatars are public and are seen everywhere - that we prefer people have avatars whose content would be rated E, even though elsewhere on GameSpot people can easily find images that would not be rated E.

I can't recall what your avatar was, so I can't really say anything specific about your avatar itself. This is all just talking in general.
Posted 02/18/2008 12:15am
Oh, and as for why it went this long without being reported, well, I don't really know. A lot of things that mods do is in response to reports that people make. It's possible that someone saw it just recently who was offended by it while everyone who saw it before that didn't even think twice about it.

It's definitely true that the report system can sometimes lead to mods acting on things way after they're actually put up on the site, which can come across as rather stupid, but mods simply don't have the time to scour GameSpot with a fine-toothed comb to find everything bad the moment it crops up. It's sorta the best we've got, as it's between that and leaving a whole bunch of stuff un-acted upon unless a mod happens by at the right time.
Posted 02/18/2008 12:37am
GabuEx: Pictures of a bloody murder scene from the upcoming condemned 2 were right on the front page the other day displaying a skinned human body with blood on the walls.

Anyways I've always thought Gamespot should grow up. It is one of the lead gaming websites out there and games have grown to range from kids games to ones that mimic some of the most contriversal movies out there yet everything about this site has to be rated E for Everyone.
Posted 02/18/2008 9:41am
Gabu, you're probably right. That sounds like it would be the reason for them to mod it. But if that is true, I really find it hard to believe that Gamespot, which is run by some very intelligent people I'm sure, can't see the hypocrisy in this ridiculousness. You do propose an interesting theory, but that doesn't negate the fact that what they've done here and probably elsewhere is hypocritical and unwarranted. And as smerlus said, they have had some rather graphic images front and center on this website before.

I'm not necessarily angry about this. I just hope the Gamespot mods read this and seriously reconsider how they carry out their rulings. My avatar wasn't sexual, it had no foul language, and it was no more violent than anything Gamespot puts up on this site regularly. This whole situation is absolutely ludicrous.
Posted 02/19/2008 4:30pm
It's strange to see a group having their first amendment rights threatened then threaten others' right to free expression in turn. And here are the real roots of societal rot ... I agree with smerius ... time to grow up.
Posted 03/11/2008 9:10am
Yes i got that message too. My first avatar was Cathy Barry in a bikini. I lived with that avatar for like two months and then it got banned. Now how lame is that?
Now i have Aria Giovanni
Posted 03/31/2008 7:54am
Previous   |   Next
Page: 1

Post a Comment

Profile

MallratsJaySB
last online: 2:10pm Sep 24, 2009
member since: Jul 11, 2003
Rank:
Level:
My Other Profiles:
GameSpot TV.com MovieTome

About Me

I'm 20 years old and I go to school at George Mason University and it rules. Final Four 2006 baby!

Friends' Recent Blogs

Data Warehouse Clear Gif