Slashdot Log In
Sugar-Coated Drug-Dealing Game Approved For iPhone
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jan 21, 2009 03:11 PM
from the just-try-calling-your-suitcase-a-bomb-at-the-airport dept.
from the just-try-calling-your-suitcase-a-bomb-at-the-airport dept.
Pocket Gamer writes "Of course, Apple wouldn't allow such a salacious games as Dope Wars on the hallowed corridors of the App Store. What Catamount's done is sugarcoat its game (quite literally) and turned it into Prohibition 3: Candy Wars — a reskinned version of the exact same game."
Related Stories
Submission: Sugar coated drug dealing game approved for iPhone by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Drat it all! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dope Wars (Score:3, Funny)
I remember playing this in real life during high school... (Disclaimer: I attended HS in the mid-80s in So. Cali.)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I did the same. Of course, without the drug references nobody would have found it the least bit interesting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On Windows, I always liked Drug Lord [geekhideout.com] more. It's essentially the same game as Dope Wars, but with a better interface. I had a lot of fun/frustration trying to get on the high score board, but then I realized that it was sort of easy to cheat and assumed everybody else was since there was no way to get near even the bottom of the board without doing so. Still, it's a great game that I still occassionally play.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew that this sounded familiar! I used to play this on my old Visor! Good times.
I thought it would be Mario (Score:2)
out getting more 'shrooms.
Somehow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kidding aside, I don't think Apple had much choice. All it takes is five or ten idiots who can't see through their guise, and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store.
In conclusion, blame the shallow, gullible masses.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Why does a KID have an iPhone? The only phone my kid has is a preprogrammed one with 7 set phone numbers they can call.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibility 1. They don't have an iPhone, they have an iPod Touch. (queue the "why does a KID have an iPod Touch?" question)
Possibility 2. Maybe they saved their money and bought it themselves (as a "major purchase") Either with them paying for it through their job, or with the understanding that the parents pick up X amount of the monthly fee, and they have to pay the difference out of c
Re: (Score:2)
If a kid is responsible enough to hold a job that pays well enough to afford an iPhone, then I'll just assume that they are responsible enough to handle omgdrugz!
And if it's a spoiled kid who was handed a pacifier^H^H^H^H^H^H^H iPhone, then their parents have already screwed them up far more than a game ever will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, well, some kids have to deal drugs for a living, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think thats fair. Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store. There are lots of solutions here except for censorship. Blocking and censoring is the dumb way out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store.
There's the catch.
If Apple were to make a stand, those same gullible people would cry foul, and before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut', and there goes a good portion of conservative buyers.
On the other hand, if Apple put in an adults-only part of the store, we could skip people crying foul and jump straight to the devil-smut.
DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
"before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut'"
I think that would just help them sell more iPhones...
Re: (Score:2)
Considering they already whine when something is available, period, I think they'd still whine in this case. Unless you expect the masses to not know about installing apps from outside the store, in which case the iPhone will be just the same. They can, after all, be jailbroken fairly easily (on Windows it takes a few clicks of the mouse
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think thats fair. Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store.
Why would it even need to be in an "adults-only" section of the Apple store? It's a *game*. It's not real. Anyone who fails to realise this isn't real should be put away for the good of the community.
Re: (Score:1)
... and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store...
Wait, what?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I HATE "kid-safe" apps and games, they drive me nuts!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TI-86 (Score:2)
Yet they let that stupid mobsters game go (Score:2)
I get hit with ads for it from time to time and I think it just jumped to the top of the App store.
So if we're going to worry about a drug dealer simulator game making it onto the iPhone can we worry more about the one that allows you to put hits out on your friends and uses real social networks (cheapening them in the process as well)...
One of the first Apple ][ games was similar... (Score:2)
It came on cassette tape.
Sugar Coated Drug Dealing Game ? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: !literally tag (Score:2)
Re: !literally tag (Score:4, Funny)
So is figuratively the new old literally?
"His head literally exploded."
"I bet, he must have been really mad."
"No, his head exploded. You can pack a surprising amount of C4 in someone's mouth."
"Why'd you say literally then? You meant his head figuratively exploded."
"There's never enough C4..."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A wonderful Best of Craigslist rant about the meaning of "literal": http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/van/144733448.html [craigslist.org]
Re: !literally tag (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect.
To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar.
The alternative, to figuratively sugarcoat (i.e. the figure of speech) is to make appear more pleasant or acceptable.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar
I hate it when people say "literally" for things that are actually far from literal, but in this case, the submitter deserves some leeway. Not only did they figuratively sugarcoat it by making a drug-dealing game a candy-dealing game, but they transformed drugs into candy. Which you could do by literally sugar coating drugs and making them sweet.
It's still not literally sugarcoating, because there were no actual drugs and no actual candy, but it was quite clever wordplay, so I would say the usage is valid
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the use of "literally" is redundant at best, and probably ruins the joke (subtlety and all that).
Re: (Score:2)
They did pretty much literally coat their in-game drugs with in-game sugar, so it's in-game literal in this case :)
lame pedantry (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, they did also do the figurative meaning: they changed their game from being about selling drugs to being about selling something else in order to figuratively "sugarcoat" the subject.
But they did so by skinning the game with sugary graphics, which seems pretty "literally" sugar coating to me, in that rather than merely figuratively sugarcoating their game with some arbitrarily less offensive graphics, the new graphics are, literally, images of sugar. That's not the figure of speech "sugarcoat", but the
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, if you want to apply the literal meaning, you would say the in-game drugs were sugar coated. The word play to begin with was witty, until it was ruined by the "literally" comment. I'd put it on par with throwing in "(look at the funny pun I made)", when in fact it isn't even a pun but a double entendre.
Chocolate Underground? (Score:2)
Anyone else think of Chocolate Underground [animenewsnetwork.com] when they read this review?
Lots of controversy over what they let on ... (Score:1, Informative)
They aren't trying to hide it. (Score:1)
There's a word missing from the summary. (Score:2)
"What Catamount's done is sugarcoat its game (quite literally) and turned it into Prohibition 3: Candy Wars â" a badly-reskinned version of the exact same game."
Fixed that for you. Seriously, the screenshot in the article is hideous.
Scandalous! (Score:2)
How DARE Apple quash the creative freedom these developers were exhibiting by ripping off and repackaging an old freeware game!
Of course it's all about the packaging (Score:2)
"No you just winged him, now he's a Unitarian."
just slang words (Score:1, Funny)
the article [pocketgamer.co.uk] says
but from the screenshot [pocketgamer.co.uk] (same link) it seems these are just slang for drugs.
what would be sweet of course is if all these weren't common slang terms, but only becom
Ok, maybe not the first. (Score:2)
What we have here is a failure to communicate (Score:2)
Do the article author and the slashdot editor not actually get it? The problem wasn't the game play, it was the theme involved. "Sugar coating" it exactly solves the problem. So why does anyone think they've reached some massive cleverness by sneaking their drug game through the censors?
It's like that idiot lady that snuck "gun powder" (components) through airport security showing how terrible they are. (I'm not claiming any magic profiling ability in the TSA here.) But if you don't blow up an airplane they
Taipan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cocaine is known for making its users go on and on about the same thing, thinking they're being terribly clever when they're really just boring everyone else rigid. It is therefore well-loved by Slashdot AC trolls.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Linux on the desktop?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)