Telegraph rekindles Bully controversy News

So this new version is not being called Canis Canem Edit in the UK?

Another case of "we havent played the game, but we will moan anyway". Tossers.

Do people really need this for their 360s? Really?

I've not played the game but isn't it the case that you're the recipient of the bullying rather than the other way round?

If so then people should get their facts straight before going off on one.

Nope it's being called bully. I just wish for once the people who complain about games actually played them first, then made there judgements on them. All the telegraph is doing is continuing a story that is untrue, this game is brilliant and despite what jack tompson thought it wasn't a columbine simulator.

Erm, hasn't the PS2 game been out long enough for them to realise that moaning about it is stupid? I mean, it's there for them play in the name of research, so this time there really is no excuse for their ignorant idiocy.

By moaning about it again despite already being proven wrong the last time, is just highlighting how pathetic they are. But then if they haven't played through a decent length of the game to see what it's like (clearly they haven't..) then why should anyone listen to them anyway?

Canis Canem Edit was a better name anyway.

Not this crud again...it was ridiculous first time, round, and what do you know? It is this time round, too!

Still, I have to agree with EG; Bully is a stupid, intentionally controversy-baiting title that was always going to attract this kind of fervour. You'd hope Rockstar would have a bit more sense...until you realise that they ARE Rockstar, so this is part of their M.O. It's hard to sympathise sometimes...

@KingOfSpain

Yes we do, I don't have a PS2, and won't have a PS3 for a while (and probably won't be able to play PS2 games on that anyway), but Bully is a game I actually really want to play after all the positive reviews and it looks like alot of fun.

The should just have called it Skool Daze :D

I'll get it on the 360. Tried it for an hour or 2 on the PS2 and quite enjoyed it. Just that my tv is rubbish for SDTV that put me off getting it back then.

I fully agree. We should also ban war games as Im getting fed up of all the local children running round the streets throwing grenades and killing everyone.

"The idea that people should be glorifying bullying is just tasteless. It is hardly encouraging good social values for our children. Just the name Bully is going to attract loads of opportunists to try and turn this into a voting issue," said the waste of space.

To be fair, you can actually bully people in the game, such as stuff people (males only, IIRC) into lockers and bins, and put their heads down toilets. Although, it is more fun to it against people who victimise you, such as prefects, you can easily take your rage out on the nerds. It's not the point of the game, but you can do it.

I agree the title is contrevorsy baiting, but it is a justified 15 certifcate in my opinion. I can see why certain people may take offence to it, not to say that I agree with them.

It should have been called "Beat The Bullies", then if they complained it would destroy their whole argument. "It teaches children to stand up to bullies! Disgraceful!".

Anyway, why play games to see bullying when you can watch it on TV all night.

"The idea that people should be glorifying bullying is just tasteless. It is hardly encouraging good social values for our children. Just the name Bully is going to attract loads of opportunists to try and turn this into a voting issue," said the waste of space.

we should put their head down a toilet and flush it till they cry mercy ... then stab them

...

..

.

omg what have i become!?!

damn you liberal media, damn you too hell!!!

The particularly ridiculous thing about the controversy surrounding GTA and Canis Canem Edit, is that you don't actually have to do despicable, violent things, but you can if you really want.

Just like real life, really.

Quick, everybody, ban reality!

What do you expect from the Daily Torygraph?

(see what I did there?)

I guarantee tomorrow the Daily Fail will have picked it up - that's when the BBFC'll start to brick it.

OLD!

"A violent new video game" - Only if you want it to be. You can kiss girls too...

"The game, called Bully, features a shaven-headed pupil" - Because shaven head = "common" to the old etonites that are probably the target of the article.

Again, just like with the sudoku comment if these people actually considered playing it they'd probably never say these things. There is probably a special badge for banning a videogame from Ace attourney, Jack Thompson.

I agree that the reaction by the press to this is hollow, uninformed and popularity chasing. However, I remember the very first screens released for Bully (as it was initially titled) on the PS2, and Rockstar have no one to thank for all this nonsense but themselves.

The fundamental core of the game could have remained exactly the same with a different name and some more appropriate screen shots (the very first one released showed the skin headed lead character, with angry look on face, kicking a harmless looking kid in the head iirc). But Rockstar chose to present it in that way, so they reap what they sow.

A bull might be angry and it might be stupid, but some might suggest that what is even more stupid is getting into the field with the bull and waving a red hanky in its face.

Parents have a responsibility to stop their children playing games that they deem unsuitable, yet these people would rather blame the government and the developers for making them. When a kid gets in trouble due to drugs, do they blame the Colombians, Afghans (etc) for growing them?

I'm surprised there was never any "hidden content" in bully...i mean it WAS made by Rockstar, i was half expecting chainsaws, AK 47's to be coded in there.

I liked Weefz's post here on theaveragegamer.
At least play the bloody game before you write crap about it. There is a lot of lazy journalism about at the moment, and most of it aimed at games. Rubbish.

Anyone who has played the PS2 version knows that there is potentially more damaging content in an episode of Grange Hill!!

All this is such a shame since it's a brilliant game. These idiots should actually try playing it first.

@kangarootoo

Exactly.

Personally, I wish Rockstar would grow up and do more games like Table Tennis. They obviously have quite a bit of talent; they should use it more appropriately instead of constantly dangling their bits in the proverbial lion's mouth to boost sales.

I love MPs who think banning a game is going to solve all the country's ills.

Ban Tom Brown's Schooldays! Ban Grange Hill! Ban, in fact, bloody stupid people who know nothing about what they're trying to get banned.

Talking about the actual game, I think I'd rather have Bully 2 than GTA IV.

"The fundamental core of the game could have remained exactly the same with a different name and some more appropriate screen shots (the very first one released showed the skin headed lead character, with angry look on face, kicking a harmless looking kid in the head iirc). But Rockstar chose to present it in that way, so they reap what they sow.

A bull might be angry and it might be stupid, but some might suggest that what is even more stupid is getting into the field with the bull and waving a red hanky in its face. "

Which is moot really, as these are professionals and as so should be researching their 'targets' in order to look like the pros they claim to be. Rockstar might partly be to blame for first leading them to have these opinions when first looking at the screenies, but it really doesn't excuse the tabloids and Vaz from being entirely unprofessional and reactionary in their actions. To continue to use those screenies as something against the game despite it's release some time ago means they STILL haven't done the necessary research. Rockstar are not at fault for that, as it's now purely down to the ignorance of those parties.

If I was I journalist or MP in the public eye, I'd make damn sure I was right and did my research before shooting my mouth off, as I don't want to look an idiot. Obviously not looking like a complete twonk isn't as high on the priority list with the Telegraph or Mr Vaz...

@login_name

To be honest I don't mind if Rockstar continue to amke games such as Canis Canem Edit instead of Table Tennis. A mix of the two would be good. My issue is not with the game itself, but with the way that Rockstar presented it.

@SomaticSense

"but it really doesn't excuse the tabloids and Vaz from being entirely unprofessional and reactionary in their actions"

I don't believe I ever said that it did. The blame in this instance is shared (on which we appear to agree), which was exactly the point of my bull analogy and also I believe suggests the actual point I was making is not moot at all.

We critisise the various critics for not playing the game, not understanding its actual content, and basing their opinions on hearsay and misrepresentation... and we are right to do so.

BUT, Rockstar themselves in their initial press releases misrepresented the game. They themselves misrepresented the actual content. YES Keith Vaz is just chasing the popularity pound, and YES the media at large aren't interested in the actual truth of the matter, but YES Rockstar practically invited them to take that path.

We all bloody know the way Rockstar run their shop. They have discovered since GTA3 that controversy sells their product. So they have relied on this and it has worked for them. However, a couple of recent cases (this, and MH2) show that restraint and balance are not their strong points.

Table Tennis seems to have been their only action in the last 6 years to try and ensure all of their eggs weren't stacked in the same controversial basket. That behaviour appears now to be biting them on the arse (whatever the internet might like to think about conspiracy theories and manipulating publicity, MH2 getting banned was an unexpected catastrophe and R* were not pelased about it at all).

NO the people doing the biting aren't interested in the truth, and we should critisise them for that. But YES Rockstar essentially mooned them and said "here is our arse, bite it if you dare".

Hope that clears things up, and remains un-moot :)

Despite all the bandwagon jumping and soapboxing of media, you do have to hand it to Rockstar for being deliberate and playing into it all. I'm sure that all this increased free publicity will translate into greater sales for what is essentially a remaster of a PS2 game.

@kangarootoo

Yeah, I know that, which is why I used the word "personally" :)

I don't mind them doing controversial games either, I enjoyed most of the GTAs, but I would like them to do more normal titles too. I have a beef with people who constantly use negative press to promote their games. It casts a cloud on my industry and hobby and I can't help but feel they do it cos they know some of their titles wouldn't sell well if they promoted on game quality alone e.g. Manhunt, which is, I'm sorry, complete balls.

I'm not a fan of anything that deliberately skirts controversy for a cheap sell. More often than not it turns out to be pants.

Shut your hole you bunch of pencil pushin boodys

hello..this is angel visiting first time to this site and find it very interesting.


-----------


Angel

Homes for sale