Only psychopaths think that if something is OK in a video game than it's OK in real life. And I don't think those people need help in thinking they should go crazy and kill people. I'm really sick of politicians placing blame squarely on video games, when there has been ZERO evidence the video games make people more violent. Should we look at violence in video games as an issue? Sure, but only as long as we look at multiple possible causes, like gun control, mental issues, and maybe other forms of violent media for a change. Saying that video games are terrible without any proof to back up claim is ignorant, plain and simple.
I have absolutely no problem with people saying video games are too violent and that there should be actions taken to prevent minors from getting their hands on M-rated games, because, to be frank, it is true. Kids obviously shouldn't be playing games like God of War or Mortal Kombat or whatever, and while a lot of responsibility should be placed on parents, it's ignorant to say that the AAA titles that this industry is built on aren't based around senseless violence.
However, one of the big things I have a problem with is when people connect violence in video games to real life violence, which is pretty much of a result of it being the newest "medium" in the entertainment industry. It bothers me that when something terrible occurs, people immediately point to video games, but not movies or TV or any other media that has just as much violent content. Everyone always says children need to be protected from video games, but why not anything else?
Also, Lee can go **** himself. Not every gamer plays video games out of an insatiable blood lust. In fact, I would say the majority of us turned out to be normal functioning human beings, so discounting the opinions of an entire demographic is pretty ignorant.
I think of all the consoles, Sony had the best showing. I can't say I was particularly impressed by it, especially with Wonderbook looking like more gimmicky bullshit, I was really impressed by Beyond: Two Souls and The Last of Us. However, I do think that Ubisoft had the best overall conference. They showed off the widest variety of games, and got everybody talking about Watch Dogs, which I think looks amazing.
This is really the only thing that blew me away during the press conferences, a fresh, new IP that seems innovative and unique. I really hope this game turns out well.
Nice list. I just wanted to add in Overstrike, which had a sweet trailer at last year's E3 and had a nice concept, but there hasn't been a single drop of news about the game since.
Can't say that I'm surprised that it happened, and it's good that the developers are taking their time to make the game as good as possible. However, I really want this game to come out soon, so I'm still a bit disappointed.
The fact that Assassin's Creed III is already selling well just reinforces something we've known for a long time. Sequels don't need to be innovative or exciting anymore, they just need to be sequels. Games cost money, and people are only gonna buy games they feel certain they will enjoy. That's why the Assassin's Creed's and the Call of Duty's of the world simply sell themselves, while other games need to work harder to sell well.
As a fan of AC myself, I couldn't agree more with this article. Although I really did like Brotherhood, probably about the same as I like ACII, I really felt Revelations was a step back. They didn't introduce anything exciting to the game, and they took away the excellent puzzle sections with the glyphs and replaced them with the stupid Desmond parts. I'm looking forward to what will in all likelihood be AC3 this year, but I'm starting to get worried about the franchise falling into the COD/Madden cycle of releasing a new game each year that's the same as the year before.
EpicSaouce25's comments