Talk:The Guy Game

Untitled

The court case, a 17 year old girl had a fake ID and was in an adults only club. She allowed herself to be filmed topless for a video game. Later, she sues the company saying she was humiliated and the footage was used without her permission when she was underage? She won the case and the game is now edited. Apparently, the young woman also planned to go to college, have a career and be active in community and church. Does anyone else think this case is really strange? 131.202.139.61 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this information? ~ Hibana 23:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the article and check out the links. If you search for the game and the controversy on the internet, you can find all that info. FuturamaFan 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

what happened to part 2

has part 2 now been squashed due to the lawsuit? theguygame.com no longer exists either even though the logo is plastered all over the game.

From what I heard the game sucked...

but they still should not have banned it. Did she say in court she had a fake i.d? Did she get in any trouble for it? Wouldnt that have caused more embarrassment than someone playing and MAYBE recognizing your the one flashing your breasts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.174.176 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey i heard of a case where a girl gets pregnate raping a guy and she sues him for child suport and wins.Shit happens.BTW its an ok game i liked it for like 20 bucks.69.220.1.137 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

.It's not a matter of her being embarrased, it's a matter of they have (legaly defined) gratitous sexual imagery of an underage girl in the game. It doesn't matter if it's by one year, one month, or one day. It's child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.240.191 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to the guy above me: Actually it is ONLY a matter of her being embarrassed (and a claim that she wasn't properly informed about how the image was going to be used), NOT child porn. Nudity (in this case, exposing her breasts) is not defined as pornography by itself. In order to be guilty of the crime of producing child pornography under US federal law, the image must contain more than just exposed breasts. It must contain exposed genitals and the image must show the genitals in a manner that makes them the focus of the image (the part of the image that the photographer is clearly trying to draw the viewer's eyes to). The images that the 17 year-old girl was involved in, in this game, do not rise to the level of child pornography as defined in US federal law. If a crime had been committed, she would not have been suing them, she would be calling the cops on them. There is a big difference between criminal court and civil court. If the images of the 17 year old in The Guy Game were child porn as you are claiming, then the Gugenheim Art Museum in New York City would be violating the law for having these photos http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artists/3808 but they AREN'T violating the law, which is why those photos still are in that art museum, and nobody is sitting in prison because of those photos. Animedude5555 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Guy Game.PNG

Image:The Guy Game.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Child Pornography?

Because of the 17-year old, wouldn't all copies featuring her be classified as child pronography? If so, not only would this game be banned, but it would also be illegal to own. This should be definitely be added to the article, but I'm not sure where the best way to go about it. The Legacy (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That'd need to be in reliable sources though. Remember to avoid WP:OR. Lordtobi (✉) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Topheavy Studios

@Benjaminkirsc: Names don't need to be words; "Topheavy" might be messy, but so is "Top Heavy". It's also "Microsoft" not "Micro Soft". Of course, MobyGames is not a reliable source, it merely serves as a provider for a scan of the box, which shows the legal name and logo of the developer. The website and logo of the company also echo this spelling. Reliable sources that reflect this are plenty and easy to find.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Obviously, some reliable sources also got it wrong, but the number that did so is far lower than those who got it right (Google tells me 920 "Top Heavy" vs. 3,050 "Topheavy" ones). Add a few press releases[17][18] to the mix and we can be certain that the developer is called "TOPHEAVY Studios", Wikipedia-ized as "Topheavy Studios". Please stick to WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, and provide reliable sources before asking others to do so, especially when changing a name that had been in place for years. Lordtobi (✉) 12:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I forgot that Top Heavy was actually Topheavy. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Guy Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 17:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one, but I'm currently a little busy and tight on time. Hopefully you're okay with waiting a few days? λ NegativeMP1 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all! It's a long weekend in Australia so I may be offline over the weekend, so please take your time with this one. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I still plan on reviewing this, but I'm going to need a little bit longer to get around to it. Really sorry for the wait. λ NegativeMP1 19:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, it's all voluntary. Take your time. Some of the other GANs have been sitting inactive for months. No worries. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

General criteria

No criteria for a quickfail at WP:GAFAIL is met by this article. No signs of copyright violations, no cleanup tags or banners present, etc.

Prose review

• In the lead, I think at least a sentence or two about the development of the game itself would be nice (beyond the lawsuit).
• "with surprise expressed that the game did not receive an 'Adults Only' classification" Surprise expressed by who?
• Alt text for the gameplay screenshot, please.
• Refs 16 and 31 are duplicates
• Spotchecked sources 3, 16/31, 28, 49, and 51. All appear to verify the content they are cited to.

Well that was certainly an... interesting read. Not a whole lot to address, and I went through and fixed some minor stuff myself. I'll give you seven days to respond to the above per usual. λ NegativeMP1 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing - I can appreciate it's...perhaps not what you had in mind when you saw the article! I've updated the lead, changed the wording on the rating to be more neutral, added alt text to the screenshot, and removed the duplicate citation. Thanks for your feedback and happy to follow up if you have anything additional. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's fine with you, I'll take one more glance at this article tomorrow (since there's a chance I missed something based on the time of night it is here), and either have more comments or pass the article. I'm sorry for increasing the duration of this thing, but I think this is an ideal scenario. λ NegativeMP1 08:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been a pretty light touch compared to other GAN's I've done, so I'm in no rush, and appreciate any additional feedback. Thanks again for reviewing an article with subject matter that is probably not your cup of tea - it's not mine either but it is a fairly egregiously controversial game that merits attention. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Article looks fine, and I never said it was something that wasn't my cup of tea, it was just shocking. Anyways, I'm passing this article, good job. λ NegativeMP1 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Also point me in the way of any of your own GANs if you have a current nom. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any current nominations, but I appreciate the offer. λ NegativeMP1 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.